• 



, 



■•■■ : -.-W-' ..:■■ ."--; :*r^ 

■■■■?:■■ »:-' 






Jztj?. W°l -Si ' 

(&^, r ^/,/^M. I *& .4- ..4". 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 



LETTERS 



MINISTRY, RITUAL, AND DOCTRINES 



PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL CHURCH. 



ADDRESSED TO THE 



REV. WM. E. WYATT, D. D., 

Associate Minister of St. Paul's Parish, Baltimore, and Professor of Theology in 
the University of Maryland, 



Xu rqplg to a Sermon 



EXHIBITING SOME OF THE PRINCIPAL DOCTRINES OF THE PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL 
CHURCH IN THE UNITED STATES. 



BY J ARED SPARKS, 

Formerly Minister of the First Independent Church of Baltimore. 




BOSTON: 
PUBLISHED BY JAMES MUNROE & CO., 

FOR THE CHARLESTON UNITARIAN BOOK AND TRACT SOCIETT. 

1844. 



L*M\ 



\\ 



-K 



: 









Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1844, by 
James Munroe and Compant, 

in the Clerk's Office of the District Court of the District of Massachusetts. 



CONTENTS. 

LETTER I. 

ON THE MINISTRY OF THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH. 

Reasons for discussing the subject — Our Saviour gave no instruc- 
tions respecting any particular mode of church government — 
Said nothing of three orders of ministry — The first church at Je- 
rusalem was governed by the apostles, elders, and brethren — 
Deacons — The ceremony of ordination was performed by any of- 
ficers of regular standing in the church — Paul and Barnabas 
were ordained by "prophets and teachers " — Opinions of Kui- 
noel, Rosenmuller, Hammond, and Le Clerc — Episcopalians 
fond of quoting the Fathers — Authority of the Fathers — Opin- 
ions of Milton and Jeremy Taylor — Ignatius' epistles — Testi- 
mony of the Fathers against episcopacy — Opinions of Paley, 
Locke, the bishop of Lincoln — Ecclesiastical government essen- 
tially a government of the people. p. 9 

LETTER II. 

ON THE RITUAL OF THE CHURCH. 

Baptism — Church form not scriptural — Sign of the cross — Con- 
firmation — These forms nearly the same as in the Catholic church 
— Ordination service — Expediency and utility of forms of prayer 
— Their disadvantages — Origin of Saints' days — Bossuet. p. 51 

LETTER III. 

ON THE AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH IN CONTROVERSIES OF FAITH. 

Our Saviour gave no authority to any man, or body of men, to 
judge others for their religious opinions — Christians have no 
other rule of faith than the Bible — Chillingworth — Athanasian 
creed — Historical sketch of the first conventions of the Ameri- 
can episcopal church after the revolution — Injurious tendency 
of creeds and articles, both on the clergy and the people — Many 
christians cannot conscientiously worship according to the litur- 
gy of the church — Inconsistency of holding to the authority of 
tradition, and rejecting infallibility — How creeds keep schism 
out of the church — Milton's opinion. p. 74 



IV 

LETTER IV. 

ON THE DOCTRINAL CHARACTER OF THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES. 

The fundamental doctrines of Calvinism fully set forth in the ar- 
ticles and homilies — Ninth article — Homilies — Seventeenth ar- 
ticle — Bishop Burnet's exposition — Opinions of the first re- _ 
formers calvinistic — Nowel's catechism — Latimer's sermons — 
Bishop's Bible — Oxford theses — Ridley's letter on election and 
predestination — Lambeth articles — Heylin — University of Cam- 
bridge—Synod of Dort — English delegates were all calvinists — 
Strange doctrine of the eighteenth article — Arminian mode 
of interpreting the articles indefensible — Proposed summary of 
faith. p. 100 

LETTER V. 

DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY AS HELD BY THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH. 

Litany — The worship it inculcates — Doctrine of the trinity con- 
tained in the articles — Opinions of learned episcopalians — There 
is one true God — The Lord Jesus Christ is not this one true 
God, but a subordinate being — Doctrine of two natures — The 
Holy Spirit is not the true God — Jews had no conceptions of any 
threefold distinction in the Deity— Nor had the disciples of Je- 
sus — Nor did the apostles preach any such doctrine after the as- 
cension of Christ — The christians of the first century were prin- 
cipally, if not entirely, unitarians — Origin of the doctrine of the 
trinity. p. 129 

LETTER VI. 

EXPOSITION OF CERTAIN TEXTS OF SCRIPTURE SUPPOSED TO FAVOR 
THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY. 

Objections answered — Use of reason — Mysteries — Burgh's Reply 
to Lindsey — Jones on the Trinity — His singular mode of inter- 
preting the scriptures — All the texts considered in which Christ 
is called, or supposed to be called God — None of these proves 
him to be the Supreme Being — Texts, which are thought to as- 
cribe such properties or powers to Christ, as could belong only 
to God — How Christ and the Father are one — Christ possessed 
the attributes of God in a limited degree — God the only object 
of religious homage — Form of baptism — Communion of the 
Holy Spirit — Concluding remarks. p. 175 



LETTER I. 

ON THE MINISTRY OF THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH. 



Reverend and dear sir, 

When your late discourse on the ministry and doctrines 
of the Protestant Episcopal Church first appeared, I en- 
gaged with much interest in its perusal. The design, which 
you proposed, of explaining at large the principal doctrines, 
and distinguishing characteristics of this church, led me to 
anticipate much pleasure and improvement from the execu- 
tion. If I have been disappointed in some of my expecta- 
tions, I could not fail to be gratified with the spirit of candor 
and good intentions which pervades your discourse ; and, if 
it has failed to produce conviction, I hope I have not read 
it without profit. 

In the remarks I am about to make, I have no design to 
state any charge of intentional misrepresentations, or to 
question your motives. Nor is it so much your own private 
opinions with which I am concerned, as the doctrines and 
principles you have attempted to explain and defend, and 
which you represent as forming the most striking features 
of the church to which you belong. Among these I cannot 
but think there are many errors ; and not a few, which can 
have no other than an injurious tendency on the cause of 
truth and pure religion. As you have thought it your 
duty to undertake a public explanation and defence of these 
doctrines, you cannot be surprised, that I should think it 
2 



10 MINISTRY OF THE 

mine, to adopt a similar mode of expressing my opinions, 
and of stating my objections. 

I propose first to consider what you have said on the min- 
istry of the Episcopal Church ; and afterwards to examine 
its ritual and doctrines. 

I confess I was not entirely prepared to find, at this ad- 
vanced period of moral and intellectual improvement, any 
member of a protestant religious society, and especially in 
this country, who would seriously engage in the attempt to 
establish the divine origin of any particular form of church 
government, and claim its lineal descent from the apostles. I 
had thought the long agitated controversy, about the divine 
right of episcopacy, was generally allowed to be at rest, even 
in those countries where the civil, as well as ecclesiastical 
interests are intimately concerned in the result. In more 
scholastic times, when the world was busied in visions and 
dreams as unprofitable as they were imaginary, this was a 
theme sufficiently obscure to interest the lovers of specula- 
tion, and sufficiently pretending to engage the ambitious. 
Few at this day, I supposed, could be found, who would 
not at least consider it a doubtful cause ; and still fewer, who 
would, think it of sufficient moment publicly to engage in its 
defence. The termination of the controversy which was 
carried on a few years ago in New- York on this subject, 
was not such, one would think, as to warrant in the friends 
of episcopacy a desire for its renewal. 

In my estimation the subject in itself is of very little 
importance, because I am convinced, that the grounds which 
you and some others take, are unscriptural, and consequently 
untenable. Yet in its consequences it is by no means unim- 
portant. If any order of men can prove to the satisfaction of 
the people,that, as an order, there are lineal descendants from 
the apostles, and inherit a right to their office by virtue of this 



EPISCOPAL CHURCH. 11 

descent, they will almost necessarily possess an influence 
over the minds and opinions of the weak and credulous, 
which, unless their pretensions are well founded, they ought 
not to possess. In religion, if in anything, the mind should 
be left unshackled. The right of private judgment should 
be held sacred, and no improper means should be used to 
restrain inquiry, or enlist credulity. 

As we are all accountable beings, and accountable only for 
ourselves, it is our duty to judge for ourselves. But when 
we are made to believe, that any man is endowed with a 
portion of the inspired intelligence of the apostles, and is, 
from the nature of the office he sustains, more holy than 
other men, shall we not be in danger of fors-ettins: our obliga- 
tions to ourselves, and be likely in our religious concerns to 
yield up the highest prerogatives of our own nature — those 
of thinking, and reasoning, and judging ? What merit can 
we claim for thinking and acting right, if we do not think 
and act from our own understanding and freedom ? To be- 
lieve articles, because others have believed them, can 
scarcely be called a religious faith. That faith can be worth 
very little, and have little efficacy on the life, which is not 
built on personal knowledge and conviction. 

Another evil consequence of believing in a divinely pro- 
tected succession of officers in the church, is the perpetuity 
of error. Among protestants I believe there are no advo- 
cates for infallibility. In the christian church, as in every 
thing else, error has always been mingled with truth, and it 
does not appear, that the edicts of emperors, the decrees of 
councils, or the mandates of popes have been able to pre- 
serve a pure, a uniform, or consistent system of faith. If 
such a system had been transmitted without change from 
the primitive ages, and it were certain, that it is the one 
now adopted by your church ; I should, then say, that 
your scheme of episcopacy is a good one, and the notion 



12 MINISTRY OF THE 

of its divine origin would add to its value. It would be 
the best means, that could be devised, for perpetuating 
such a form of faith, and fixing it in the minds of the 
people. 

But is it not obvious, that such a system would have a 
tendency equally strong to perpetuate any form of belief, 
whether false or true ? And are not all articles of faith, 
which are not expressed in the language of scripture, sub- 
ject to be more or less clouded with error ? If episcopacy be 
of divine origin, why has it not preserved a pure and con- 
sistant faith. The Greek church is episcopal, and so is the 
Roman, and still they differ in many essential points from 
each other, as well as from the English church. And does 
not the episcopal church of the United States reject some 
parts of the old Book of Common Prayer, which are thought 
so important in the English church, as to be commanded by 
the laws to be publicly read at stated times ? Why are the 
Athanasian Creed, and some other parts of the Liturgy left 
out, unless it be, that they are thought unscriptural ? The 
creeds of episcopal churches have changed essentially from 
time to time, and at present they differ essentially among 
themselves. It is evident, then, that these churches have 
many errors in their articles of belief, and my position is, 
that the scheme of episcopacy is peculiarly calculated to 
perpetuate these errors. 

There is another consideration of some importance to me, 
and to all, who do not agree with episcopalians on the sub- 
ject of church government. If you are right, we are all 
wrong. If, as you say, " to the order of bishop alone belongs 
the power of ordaining ministers," then no ministers out of 
the pale of episcopacy have ever been ordained. They have 
usurped an office, which did not belong to them ; they have 
undertaken the discharge of duties, for which they were not 
qualified ; they have been guilty of a rashness, which nothing 



EPISCOPAL CHURCH. 13 

ut thsir obstinacy could account for, or their ignorance ex- 
cuse. The positive ordinances of the church, administered by 
them, have been invalid, and unaccompanied by any of those 
good effects for which they were designed. Baptism per- 
formed by them has had no efficacy ; and the celebration of 
the Lord's supper, although done in compliance with 
the express commands of our Saviour, has been rather a 
dishonor to his name, than a means of procuring spiritual 
comfort, and the rewards of obedience for his followers. 
These, you will allow, are serious considerations, not only 
to ministers, but to the people of their charge, who, if 
your statement be correct, are ignorantly entrusting their 
spiritual concerns to an unauthorized and unprofitable min- 
istry. 

It certainly cannot be thought strange, that any clergy- 
man, who is implicated in this charge, should feel it his 
duty to assert and maintain what he conceives to be his 
just claims, and show the fallacy of such pretensions, as ar- 
rogate to any class of men the exclusive character of being 
descendants from the apostles. 

The first part of your discourse is taken up in proving, that 
the episcopal church is the ontytruechurch,that its ministry 
originated with the apostles, and has descended down to the 
present time, " through an vnbroken and divinely protected 
succession" and that ordinations, performed by any other 
persons than bishops, are " devoid of every degree of validity 
and efficacy in conferring spiritual office and power." This 
shall be the subject of my first letter. 

I agree with you, that " when the gospel enjoins us i to 
be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh 
us a reason of the hope that is in us,' and i to contend earn- 
estly for the faith once delivered to the saints ;' it equally 
obliges us to ascertain and thoroughly understand what the 
characteristics of that faith may be." It is true, if we do not 
2* 



14 MIINISTRY OF THE 

ascertain, we believe without knowledge ; and if we do not 
understand, we believe without evidence. Faith without 
knowledge, or evidence, can scarcely be called a rational 
faith ; and to believe what we do not understand, if it be 
possible, is useless. A religious faith is meant to be the 
guide to a religious life, and if its objects are unintelligible, 
it must indeed be a blind guide. The same may be said of 
the faith of prejudice, or of ignorance. I unite with you 
cordially in the opinion, therefore, that its characteristics 
should be thoroughly understood. 

In the scriptures are contained the only grounds of this 
faith. No mode of Church government can be considered 
of divine origin, which is not enjoined in the most absolute 
terms in the scriptures, and no articles of faith can be con- 
sidered of divine authority, which are not there explicitly 
stated. Possible designs, and probable inferences, are not 
here to be taken. We must have plain arguments, positive 
proofs, direct conclusions, before we can venture to pro- 
nounce any scheme of government, or any summary of arti- 
cles, to be built on divine authority. The decrees of coun- 
cils, and the traditions of the church can be of no weight, 
and ought not to be quoted on these points, while we have 
the scriptures in our hands. In discussing this subject, 
therefore, I shall not think it important to resort to any 
other authorities, than such as are contained in the word of 
God. The plain truths of scripture will always remain the 
same, whatever may have been, or may still be, the opin- 
ions of men. 

Your first proposition, in regard to the ministry of the 
episcopal church, is as follows. " This ministry consists of 
three distinct orders, bishops, priests, and deacons. From the 
promulgation of the gospel by Jesus Christ, these three or- 
ders were apparent, designated by different names, and pos- 
sessing and exercising different powers." 



EPISCOPAL CHURCH. 15 

These orders you represent to have consisted of our Sa- 
viour, the apostles, and the seventy, who were sent forth to 
preach. Now, is it not a little remarkable, if Jesus intend- 
ed the ministry of his church to consist of three orders, and 
to be transmitted in this form through all succeeding ages, 
that he should not have given some directions on so impor- 
tant a subject ? Is it credible, that, if he intended a partic- 
ular class of persons only should be qualified for administer- 
ing the ordinances of his religion, he would not have given 
some positive instructions in regard to the nature of their 
qualifications ? But what is the truth ? Not a hint is found 
in the whole four gospels, that he designed either to estab- 
lish or perpetuate any such form of church government, as 
the one you have mentioned. His last commission to his 
disciples is given in the following words ; " Go ye and teach 
all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and 
of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit; teaching them to ob- 
serve all things whatsoever I have commanded you." Matt, 
xxviii 19, 20. He never mentioned three orders, or any 
number of orders of priesthood. He never spoke of bish- 
ops or deacons. He pointed out no particular modes of or- 
dination, nor designated any description of persons by whom 
this ceremony should be performed. 

What is the natural conclusion, except that he did not 
think it important what mode his followers should adopt to 
preserve the outward forms of his religion, provided they 
were careful to embrace its doctrines, imbibe its spirit, and 
live by its precepts ? Whatever conclusion we may draw, 
we must rest in this certainty, that our Saviour left no in- 
structions respecting any particular form of church govern- 
ment. We have no other scripture authority on this sub- 
ject, than what we derive from the writings and example of 
the apostles after the resurrection of Christ. I will next 
examine your statements as drawn from that source. 



16 MINISTRY OF THE 

You go on to observe, " when our Lord had ascended up 
on high, the apostles ordained the seven deacons to discharge 
the inferior offices of the ministry, and to preserve the sys- 
tem inviolate" What System ? Our Lord had not men- 
tioned any system. And even if he had commanded his 
disciples to preserve the three orders, which you suppose 
he established, would they not have chosen some one to 
supply the place, which had become vacant ? Would it 
not be the most rational to believe, if it were intended they 
should keep the " system inviolate," that they whould have 
appointed some person to constitute the order, which had 
ceased, when Christ ascended to Heaven ; and to take 
charge of the general concerns of the church, as he had 
done while on earth ? How else could the orders have been 
regularly preserved ? But what is the fact respecting the 
seven officers, whom you call deacons ? For what pur- 
pose were they chosen ? Instead of being appointed to su- 
perintend the concerns of the church, or indeed to supply 
any order of the ministry, their office does not seem to have 
been designed even for an ecclesiastical purpose. 

The reason for this appointment is seen in the following 
text. " And in those days, when the number of the disci- 
ples was multiplied, there arose a murmuring of the Gre- 
cians against the Hebrews, because their widows were neg- 
lected in the daily ministration." Acts vi. 1. Here the 
Gentile, or more properly the Hellenistic converts complain, 
that they were neglected by the Hebrew officers, whose du- 
ty it was to provide for the poor.* The apostles immedi- 

* The " Grecians," or Hellenists, mentioned in the text, were 
probably proselytes to the Jewish religion from among the Greeks, 
or the descendants of such persons, who had embraced Christianity. 
See Kenrick's Exposition, vol, iii. p. 109. and Newcome, in loc. It 
s well known, that these proselvtes did not enjoy the same civil 
privileges in Judea, as the native Israelites. This caused preju- 



EPISCOPAL CHURCH, 17 

ately advised them to choose a certain number of persons, 
to whom this duty might be entrusted, intimating that it 
was not an office, with which, in the exercise of their more 
important calling, they ought to be troubled. The people 
accordingly chose seven from among themselves, who were 
approved and appointed to the office by the apostles. 

But this office did not constitute a new order. They were 
chosen to aid others, who had neglected to do their duty. 
Their appointment was merely a matter of expediency, or 
convenience, to afforg 1 more extensive relief to the poor, and 
to prevent the jealousy and complaints, which had begun to 
spring up among the Hellenistic and Hebrew converts. It 
was in no respect an office for spiritual purposes, and cer- 
tainly cannot be considered as forming a part of the chris- 
tian ministry. One of them, Stephen, is represented as "a 
man full of faith, and of the Holy Spirit ;" and Philip, in 
another place, is called an evangelist, but in no connexion 
with this office. Why you call them deacons, I cannot tell, 
as no such name is given them. Neither is the word used 
in the whole book of Acts. 

Let us proceed to your next statement of the orders of 
the ministry. After the appointment of the seven officers 
just mentioned, you say, a there were then the apostles and 
those associated with them, as Titus, Timothy, &c. being 
the first order ; the seventy, bishops, elders, or presbyters, 
as they were promiscuously called, being the second order ; 
and the deacons, the third order.'''' Do you mean to consid- 
er Timothy and Titus on an equality with the apostles ? If 

dices to be kindled among them, which were not entireiy removed 
after their conversion to Christianity. We may hence see the rea- 
son of the complaint in the text. The Hebrews attended to their 
own poor, and neglected those of the proselyte converts. This is 
the more probable, as Nicolas of Antioch, one of the seven officers, 
was a proselyte. 



18 MINISTRY OF THE 

a line of distinction existed any where, between the differ- 
ent officers of the ministry, could any be more strongly 
marked, than that which separated those persons, who had 
been the companions of our Lord, and had been the special 
messengers of his gospel, from all who were afterwards 
chosen or appointed by them ? Were Timothy and Titus 
ever called apostles ? Why then should you assign to them 
the same rank ? If being " associated " with the apostles 
entitled them to a place in the first order, why were not all 
bishops, or elders, equally entitled t% this place ? They 
were all associated with the apostles in the great work of 
preaching, and teaching, and extending the kingdom of 
Christ. In this respect they all composed but one order. 

As you allow the words bishop, elder, and presbyter to 
be used promiscuously for the same thing, I should not stop 
to prove so obvious a fact, were it not denied in the book of 
" Festivals and Fasts," which is a manual in the church, 
and which you recommend very highly to your readers. In 
remarking on the testimony of Ignatius, the author, or edi- 
tor, observes, " from this unequivocal testimony it fully ap- 
pears, that in the apostolic age, there were three orders in 
the ministry, bishops, presbyters, and deacons, distinct and 
subordinate, deriving their commission from God, and claim- 
ing the reverence and obedience of the people." And the 
American editor also states, in a note, that this testimony is 
express and decided in support of the superiority of the bish- 
ops to the presbyters. If you adopt this statement in con- 
nexion with your own, you must allow at least four orders 
instead of three, namely, apostles, bishops, presbyters, and 
deacons. 

That elders, presbyters, and bishops were the same, is ev- 
ident from the twentieth chapter of Acts In this chapter, 
Paul is said to have " sent from Miletus to Ephesus, and 
called the elders of the church j" and among his directions, 



EPISCOPAL CHURCH. 19 

after they were collected, he told them, " to take heed unto 
themselves, and to all the flock over which the Holy Spirit 
had made them overseers" or, as the word is everywhere 
else rendered, bishops. In the first chapter of Titus the 
words bishop, and elder, are used in different places for the 
same person. According to Macknight, the name elder 
{rroio^vrsooc) was applied in the primitive age, as a general 
term, to all who exercised any sacred office in the church.* 

They seem to have been called elders, because they were 
chosen from among the first converts, or perhaps from 
among those, who were more advanced in age, and whose 
experience and gravity of manners gave weight to their 
character. 

We do not read in the scriptures of any distinction of 
rank among these officers ; but we are often told of their 
acting in concert with the brethren, with each other, and 
with the apostles. In the discussion about circumcision, 
" the apostles and elders came together to consider of this 
matter." And when " chosen men " were sent with Paul 
and Barnabus to Antioch, they received their commission 
from the " apostles, and elders, with the whole church." 
The letter, which they took, commenced as follows ; " The 
apostles, and elders, and brethren, send greeting to the breth- 
ren, which are of the Gentiles in Antioch, and Syria, and 
Cilicia." Acts xv. 6, 22, 23. Nothing is more clear, than 
that the government of the church at this time rested in a 
mutual council, composed not only of the apostles and el- 
ders, but also of the brethren at large. We hear nothing of 
any particular ranks among the officers. The apostles them- 
selves assumed no authority above the elders, or even the 
brethren. They acted only with their advice, and in 
concert with them. Letters were written, and ministers 
sent out, in the name of the whole body of the church. 

* Macknight on the Epistles, vol. iv. p. 245, 



20 MINISTRY OF THE 

This was the mode of government in the first church at Je- 
rusalem, and it appears to have been the same, as far as cir- 
cumstances would permit, in all the primitive churches. 
Where you find any grounds, in the transactions of this first 
church at Jerusalem, for the " three distinct orders of bish- 
ops, priests, and deacons," it is not easy to discover. 

The deacons, who compose your third order, are not men- 
tioned in the proceedings of this church. But is it proba- 
ble, if such an order of the ministry then existed, that it 
would have been overlooked in proceedings so important as 
these, in which even the brethren at large were allowed to 
take an active part ? I confess I can discover nothing in 
the account of the church at Jerusalem, or in any part of 
the New Testament, which would lead me to suppose the 
deacons, in the time of the apostles, sustained any office, 
which should entitle them to be considered a distinct order 
of the ministry. The word, in its English dress, is used 
only three times, and in no instance with reference to any 
definite office, or duties. In the original use of this word 
in the New Testament, it has a variety of meanings. Its 
radical signification is servant, and it is thus used for the 
most part in the gospels. In the epistles it generally means 
what we understand by minister and sometimes magistrate. 
Rom. xiii. 4. Paul speaks of himself and brethren being 
made " able ministers (deacons) of the new covenant." 
" Wherefore I was made a minister (deacon) according to 
the gifts of the grace of God." " Who then is Paul, and 
who is Apollos, but able ministers (deacons) by whom ye 
believed ?"* Quotations of a similar kind might be multi- 

* The word diaxovog is used in thirty places in the New Testa- 
ment. In eight of these places, it is rendered, in our common ver- 
sion, servant, and seems to have precisely the same meaning as 
deXog. In nineteen places it is rendered minister ; and in three only 
it is translated deacon. 



EPISCOPAL CHURCH. 21 

plied ; but these are sufficient to show, that the term dea- 
con, instead of designating a particular order of men, was 
frequently applied to the apostles themselves. The apos- 
tles were servants, deacons, or ministers of Jesus Christ. 

St. Paul writes to the " bishops and deacons " at Phillip- 
pi, as it is expressed in our common version. But the 
Syriac translator renders it " elders and ministers ," # and this 
translation is in accordance with the general use of these 
words, as is seen by the above quotations. In his first let- 
ter to Timothy, the apostle describes the qualifications of 
deacons, but nothing is said in regard to the nature of their 
office. These qualifications are almost precisely the same, 
as those of a bishop, which are mentioned in the same place- 
In the letter to Titus, instead of deacons, he calls them 
"aged men ;" and I can find no passage in scripture, from 
which it would appear, that these men were distinguished, 
in respect to their office, from the elders, or presbyters. 
And whatever the office of a deacon may have been, it is 
evident, that it was not appropriated to a particular order of 
men ; for Paul, Apollos, Epaphras, and the magistrates are 
called deacons. 

The opinion, which was adopted in some of the earlier 
churches, and which is still retained in yours, respecting the 
office of deacons, seems to have originated in a fancied re- 
semblance between the deacons mentioned in the first epis- 
tle to Timothy, and the seven officers appointed by the apos- 
tles, soon after the ascension of our Lord. But we have al- 
ready seen what were the duties of those men. We have 
seen, that the}^ were never called deacons, and that their 
office was wholly of a temporal nature. 

Among the duties, which you enumerate as belonging to 
the office of a deacon, are the following. " In addition to 

* Senioribus et ministris. 
3 



22 MINISTRY OF THE 

their care of the poor, the deacons officiated in distributing 
the sacramental emblems ; they were emplo} 7 ed to preach 
and baptize ; they were set apart to their office by prayer 
and imposition of hands ; and they were forbidden to follow 
any secular employments." In what part of the scriptures 
you find any of these characteristics of the office of a dea- 
con, I cannot conceive. After a careful examination, I do 
not find a single text, which would imply either directly or 
remotely, that the deacons mentioned in the epistles to the 
Phillippians and to Timothy, were especially designed for 
any of these duties. The truth is, nothing is said in scrip- 
ture about the nature of the office, or about the duties of any 
class of men designated by the title of deacons. As this 
name was often applied to the apostles, bishops, and pres- 
byters, it is not unlikely, that it was at first used as a gen- 
eral title to denote a teacher of the gospel. 

In writing to the Ephesians, St. Paul says of Jesus, that 
he " gave some, apostles ; and some, prophets ; and some, 
evangelists ; and some, pastors and teachers." Eph. iv. 11. 
What reason can be given, why each of these should not be 
considered a distinct order, as well as either of the three 
you propose ? Schleusner, in conformity with Eusebius, 
represents the evangelists as sustaining an office wholly of 
a spiritual nature.* Their name implies a teacher of the 
gospel. They were employed to aid the apostles in estab- 
lishing churches. It was their custom to travel from place 
to place. In this respect they differed essentially from pres- 
byters, who were usually confined to the same church. 
There is just as much reason for considering them a distinct 
order, and also the prophets, pastors, and teachers, as either 
of the three in } T our catalogue. Instead of three orders, 
you would then have six, besides deacons, namely, apostles, 

* Scbleus. Lex. in verb. Evayyt).. 



EPISCOPAL CHURCH. 23 

prophets, bishops, or presbyters, evangelists, pastors, teach- 
ers. And I am convinced, that as strong arguments may be 
advanced for adopting this number, as the one you have cho- 
sen. 

Another point, which you state with great confidence, is, 
that " it has been the faith of the universal church, without 
exception, until the period of the reformation, that to the order 
of bishops alone belongs the power of ordaining ministers.' 1 
In the " universal church," I suppose } t ou will embrace the 
first church of the apostolic age. Not only so, I suppose 
you will allow this to be the only authentic source, to which 
you can go for information on this subject. What our Sa- 
viour taught, and the apostles are said to have practised, 
will be good authority. This is the only authority on which 
we can with safety rely, notwithstanding what may have 
been the " faith of the universal church, without excep- 
tion," since that time. 

As Christ left no instructions about any particular kind of 
ministry in the church, so there are no words of his record- 
ed on the subject of ordination. This alone is enough to 
prove, that the manner, in which it is pet formed, cannot be 
a thing of so much importance as you would imply, when 
you say, that ordinations performed by any other, than a 
bishop, " would be devoid of every degree of validity and ef- 
ficacy, in conferring spiritual office and power." What was 
the practice in the time of the apostles ? Barnabas and 
Saul were ordained by " certain prophets and teachers at 
Antioch-" Acts xiii. 1. Here, it seems, even the apostle 
to the Gentiles was ordained by officers of the church, who 
are not embraced in either of your orders of the ministry. 
Timothy was ordained by " the laying on of the hands of 
the presbytery." 1 Tim. iv 14. What can this mean, ex- 
cept, that the ceremony was performed by the elders, or 
presbyters, in a body ? 



24 MINISTRY OF THE 

On this subject, the examples of Timothy and Titus are 
usually quoted by the abettors of episcopacy with much ap- 
parent triumph. It is said, that they were commissioned by 
St. Paul, the one to be bishop of Ephesus, and the other to 
be bishop of Crete, and that to them was entrusted the sole 
power of ordination. It may first be remarked, that neith- 
er Timothy, nor Titus, is called a bishop in the scriptures. 
The postscripts, in which this title is given to them, were 
added to the epistles nearly four hundred years after they 
were written. JNo instructions were given to Timothy 
about ordinations, and he seems to have remained but a lit- 
tle more than a year at Ephesus. So far from being a bish- 
op, St. Paul expressly charges him " to do the work of an 
evangelist.'''' 

Paul writes to Titus, " For this cause left I thee in Crete, 
that thou shouledst set in order the things, that are wanting, 
and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee." 
Tit. i. 5. In remarking on this text, you speak of the " ac- 
knowledged jact, that there were already many elders in those 
churches." Where is this fact acknowledged ? Certainly 
not in the scriptures. On the contrary, before Titus went 
to Crete, as far as we know, there were neither elders, nor 
churches in the island. We learn no particulars of this 
country from the New Testament, till the voyage of St. Paul 
to Rome, when the vessel, in which he sailed, is said to have 
put into a port in Crete. Inhabitants of Crete are mentioned 
among those, who, on the day of pentecost, received the gift of 
the Holy Spirit. These were Jews, who, after they returned, 
probably instructed the people in what they had been taught, 
but, as was customary with the Jewish converts, mingled 
many errors, in regard to the Mosaic institutions, with the 
christian doctrines. When St. Paul Avas there, finding what 
errors and evil practices they had fallen into, and that they 
had no authorized or well informed teachers among them 3 



EPISCOPAL CHURCH. 25 

and being a prisoner, could not himself travel and preach, 
he left Titus, as he says, " to set in order the things that 
were wanting, and to ordain elders." I am aware that it is 
not particularly mentioned, that Titus accompanied St. Paul 
on this voyage ; but neither have we any account, that the 
apostle ever again visited Crete. Dr. Paley thinks Titus 
was left in Crete by St. Paul, two years afterwards, on his 
return from Rome ; but as there is no account of any such 
voyage, he acknowledges his opinion to be hypothetical.* 
Even if this were correct, it would not affect the argument. 
The object for wich Titus was left would be the same. 

From all that is known, therefore, there is no evidence 
of their being either elders or churches in Crete, before 
Titus visited the island ; and a very strong probability that 
there were none. The office of Titus seems to have been, 
in every respect, that of an evangelist. He was commis- 
sioned to travel from city to city, to form churches, and ap- 
point suitable officers. Nor does it follow from any thing 
in his commission, that, after he had organized churches, 
and ordained elders, these elders could not ordain others, 
in the same way as Paul and Barnabas had been ordained 
by " prophets and teachers," and Timothy by the presby- 
tery. In short, it appears to me, that, if any thing can be 
proved by direct scriptural testimony, it is, that the cere- 
mony of ordination was performed indiscriminately by 
apostles, prophets, presbyters, evangelists, teachers, — and 
for any thing that is known to the contrary, by all officers 
regularly appointed in the churches. 

In examining the subject of the first part of your dis- 
course, I have thus far confined myself to the sacred wri- 
tings, because I think these constitute the only authority, 
on which we ought to rely, for the proof of the divine right 

* Horse Paulinae, chup. via. 
3* 



26 MINISTRY OF THE 

of any institution. From this examination, I am convinced 
that the scriptures teach a doctrine on this subject, com- 
pletely at variance with the one you have attempted to de- 
fend. By way of recapitulation, I will endeavor to ex- 
press the grounds of this conviction, in as few words as pos- 
sible. 

First, our Saviour left no instructions in regard to the na- 
ture or form of the ministry ; he never spoke of three or- 
ders, or any number of orders ; he gave no directions about 
the ceremony of ordination, nor did he assign the duty of 
performing it to any particular class of men. Secondly, the 
apostles said nothing of any number of orders in the ministry, 
nor have they left any rules or instructions on the subject of 
ordination. Thirdly, the first church at Jerusalem was 
governed by the apostles, elders, and brethren in concert. 
The apostles assumed no authority above the elders, nor the 
elders above the people. Fourthly, it is no where said in 
the whole New Testament, that the duty of conferring or- 
dination was confined to any particular order of the ministry; 
but on the contrary, several examples are on record, which 
go to prove, that this ceremony was performed by any offi- 
cer or officers of regular standing in the church. Fifthly, 
Timothy and Titus are never called bishops. Timothy is 
expressly called an evangelist ; and the duties of Titus were 
such, as are usually assigned to an evangelist. Sixthly, the 
persons who were appointed by the apostles to assist in 
providing for the poor, and whom you call the Ci seven 
deacons," are never designated by this name in the scrip- 
tures. Their office was wholly of a temporal nature, and 
therefore could make no part of the ministry. Seventhly, 
the word deacon seems to have been applied at first as a 
general term, for a servant in the cause of the gospel, a 
minister, or teacher ; and if it was afterwards appropriated 
to any particular office, no mention is made in the writings 



EPISCOPAL CHURCH. 27 

of the apostles respecting the nature or design of such an 
office. No instance is recorded, in which deacons, as offi- 
cers of an exclusive character, are said to have taken a 
part in the government or concerns of any church. Lastly, 
the same reasons, by which you establish three orders in 
the ministry, would prove the existence of at least six or 
seven, as apostles, bishops, prophets, evangelists, elders, 
teachers, deacons.* 

* The celebrated commentator and critic, Kuinoel, in his com- 
mentary on the Acts of the Apostles, published about two years 
ago at Leipsic, has entered at some length into the discussion of 
this subject, After proving, that " Iidem, qui in libris N. T. vo- 
cantur stcioxottoi et Troiuersg, appellantur etiam TTQsopvTtQoi," 
which he says some have rashly denied, (quod temere nonnulli 
negarunt, atque de discrimine episcoporum et presbyterorum in 
primitiva eeclesiahallueinati sunt,) he goes on to observe, that the 
christians, in the time of the apostles, established in the church 
a form of government and discipline similar to what prevailed in 
the Jewish synagogues. It was the duty of the rulers of the syna- 
gogue to preserve discipline, superintend the external concerns of 
the respective societies over which they were placed, and also to 
teach and explain the law. In the same manner, it was the duty of 
the bishops, or presbyters, to superintend the government of the 
church, and teach the doctrines of the christian religion. They 
were both governors and teachers. The rulers of the synagogues 
were confined to particular societies ; and so were the first bishops, 
or presbyters, No one had any control, except in the single society 
over which he had been appointed. " Episcopi singulis christiano- 
rum coetibus praefecti erant." 

To show this resemblance still more strongly, Kuinoel further 
remarks, that the rulers of the synagogues were called fc^Ofef 
TgsofivTsQoij and quotes Philo and Vitringato prove, that their office 
must have been the same as that of the first christian bishops. Vid. 
Kuinoel. Comment, in Act. Apos. Leip.1818, p. 681. 

Rosenmuller advances a similar opinion ; and adds, that presby- 
ters and bishops, in the time of the apostles, were the same ; but 
afterwards it became customary to call any person, who was em- 
inent among them, bishop, by way of distinction. " Qui in ordine 



28 MINISTRY OF THE 

I should not deem it necesssry to dwell on this topic any- 
longer, had you not mentioned other testimony, besides that 
of the scriptures, in support of your views of episcopacy. 
I do not consider this testimony of any value in deciding 
the main question of divine right ; but, as you have intro- 
duced it at some length, I will not pass it over. The testi- 
mony of all succeeding ages can never prove that to be a 
divine, positive institution in religion, which is not sanc- 
tioned, nay, commanded in the records of divine truth. 

It is remarked of almost all the writers in favor of episco- 
pacy, that they show a singular fondness for the ancient 
Fathers. They appeal to them with scarcely less confi- 
dence, than to the sacred writers themselves, and seem to 
think that whtever is doubtful in scripture, is fully settled 

presbyterorum primas tenebat y.ax' *%oy\)v dicebatur 6 sTriazonog." 
Vid. Rosenmul. Scholia in Act. Apos. c. xx. 28 ; et in Epist. ad 
Philipp. c. i. 1. 

Hammond supports the episcopal hypothesis in its fullest ex- 
tent. He puts all the Fathers in requisition, and quotes profusely 
from the beginning of Ignatius to the end of Theophylact. He 
maintains, that Timothy and Titus were metropolitans, and proves 
it by the testimony of Theodoret and Theophylact. He also 
proves from Eusebius, that the hundred cities of Crete were con- 
verted to the christian faith by Paul himself, although Eusebius de- 
clares, that, for his history of those times, he depends solely on the 
scriptures. 

Le Clerc, in his reply to Hammond, says that Grotius, and 
others, who found no authority in scripture for these distinctions 
between metropolitans, bishops, and presbyters, have much more 
correct notions. "Nor," he adds, " can we receive as proof the 
authority of ancient Fathers, who wrote more after the manner of 
their age, than from any certain knowledge ; nor would I say, that 
bishops, or presbyters, are always to be trusted, when they give 
evidence in their own cause." Nee potest probari auctoriate 
scriptorum sequentium saeculorum, &c. Vid. Nov. Test. Ham- 
mond, et Cleri. Adnotationes in Act. c. xx. 28, et Philip- 
ni i. 1. 



EPISCOPAL CHURCH. 29 

by a quotation from some writer, who lived as long ago as 
the third or fourth century. But let it be asked, since we 
have the original book in our possession, to which they all 
referred, what occasion have we to consult any other au- 
thority ? These Fathers lived in a rude age, and wrote on 
subjects quite dinerrent from an)', which are introduced into 
modern controversy ; their writings have been corrupted, 
and many forgeries have been sent out under their names ; 
they have often written with reference to opinions unknown 
to us, and freqeutly contradicted one another. Can we be- 
lieve the testimony of such writers to be of the least value, 
when the divine origin, and divinely protected succession of a, 
religious institution is in question ? Daille, in his celebrated 
work on the right use of the Fathers, has stated seventeen 
reason why these writers are not to be implicitly relied on, 
each of which is enough to invalidate their authority, in a 
question of so much importance. 

We find a similar opinion in authors of much more celeb- 
rity than Daille. The following is from Milton. u What- 
ever time, or the heedless hand of blind chance, hath 
drawn from old to this present, in her huge drag-net, 
whether fish or seaweed, shells or shrubs, unpicked, un- 
chosen — those are the Fathers."* Jeremy Taylor, in his 
admirable treatise on the Liberty of Prophesying, says, 
" there are some, that think they can determine all ques- 
tions in the world, by two or three sayings of the Fathers, 
or by the consent of so many as they will please to call a 
concurrent testimony ; but this consideration will soon be 
at an end ; for if the Fathers, when they are witnesses of 
tradition, do not always speak truth, as it happened in the 
case of Papias, and his numerous followers, for almost three 
ages together, then is their testimony more improbable, 

* Prose Works, vol. i. p, 87, 



30 MINISTRY OF THE 

when they dispute or write commentaries."* Such were 
the opinions of men, who knew as much on this subject, 
perhaps, as any others ; and of such men as Milton and 
Jeremy Taylor. 

Your testimony from this source, you take from the 
book of Festivals and Fasts, and begin by remarking, that 
" those denominations, which controvert the divine institu- 
tion of episcopacy, and consider it the invention of an age 
subsequent to that of the apostles, have never been able to 
agree upon any one period, in which it could, even in their 
opinion, have probably originated." Admitting this to be 
true, what weight has it in the argument ? It is not of the 
least consequence, when, or how, or where, episcopacy 
commenced, since it is proved not to have been instituted 
by our Saviour, nor adopted by the apostles. 

Your first extracts to prove the divine right of episcopa- 
cy, by the evidence of the Fathers, are quoted from Igna- 
tius, who lived at the close of the first century. Was it not 
very well known to you, that the epistles attributed to him, 
and from which this testimony is taken, have been consid- 
ered by very learned men as spurious ? No one has attempt- 
ed lately to defend the genuineness of all the epistles, which 
were formerly ascribed to Ignalius, Five, at least, have 
been given up ; and the seven, which remain, are univers- 
ally allowed, even by those who are most zealous in proving 
them genuine, to be disfigured by interpolations. Le Clerc, 
who is fully persuaded, that some of the epistles attributed 
to Ignatius were actually written by him, acknowledges, 
that some are entirely spurious, and others interpolated. | 
Of those, which are considered as having some claims to 
authenticity, we have two copies. One is called the larger, 
and the other the smaller. Each of these copies has its 

* Chap. viii. on the Inconsistencies of the Falhers. 
t Ars Crit. vol. ii. p. 331. Ed. Lugd. Bat. 1776. 



EPISCOPAL CHURCH. 31 

advocates ; but whether the larger copy was made by add- 
ing to the smaller, or the smaller by abridging the larger, 
has not been ascertained. Each party in the controversy 
adopts the one, which is most agreeable to his favorite 
tenets.* It is no place here to go into the controversy ; nor 
do I wish to do any thing more, than simply to state the 
fact of such a controversy having existed, and of these epis- 
tles being, at best, of too doubtful a character to be quoted 
as authority on any point of doctrine. As your discourse 
was intended for persons, who could not be supposed to be 
very familiarly acquainted with disputed points of criticism, 
if you thought proper to bring testimony from this source, it 
would certainly not have been amiss to let them know its 
doubtful character, and the degree of credit, which it ought 
to receive. 

The American editor of the work, which you quote, has 
given a very partial view of this subject. After mentioning, 
u that some persons have attempted to disprove the genu- 
ineness of these epistles," he adds, " it has been fully vin- 
dicated by archbishop Wake, and bishop Pearson.' 1 What 
is the fact ? These writers both reject some of the epistles, 
which have been attributed to Ignatius, and allow the 
others to have been mutilated. They maintain the genu- 
ineness of the less copy, but they do not pretend that it 
has not been interpolated. Archbishop Wake supposes the 
text, from which he translated, to be the purest that had 
been published, but he does not attempt to defend it as im- 
maculate. He receives none but the seven epistles ; and 
the evidence of the genuineness of these, he draws princi- 
paly from the reputed epistle of Polycarp, which is scarcely 
better authenticated, than the epistles of Ignatius He also 
relies implicitly on the authority of Eusebius, who lived in 

* See General Repos. and Review, vol. i. p. 50. 



32 MINISTRY OF THE 

the fourth century, and who speaks on this subject more 
from tradition, than actual knowledge.* 

Many instances of interlopation in the received epistles 
were long ago discovered by archbishop Usher. These had 
reference principally to disputed points of doctrine and 
church government, and were no doubt inserted by design- 
ing transcribers into early copies. I shall have occasion to 
speak of some of these in another place. If interpolations 
have been found, even in what are called the genuine epis- 
tles of Ignatius, we want no stronger proof, that others 
might still be found, if we had access to earlier and more 
correct manuscripts. This consideration, together with the 
doubts hanging over the whole subject, is sufficient to de- 
stroy the authority of these epistles, especially in every 
thing relating to the controversies of the church. 

Herbert Marsh, now bishop of Landaff, in his notes to 
Michaelis, after stating that there is good reason for suspect- 
ing the authenticity of all the writings ascribed to the apos- 
tolic Fathers, among which are the epistles of Ignatius, ob- 
serves, " This at least is certain, that passages are found in 
these writings, which from the nature of the subjects could 
not have existed in the first century, and if they prove not 
the whole to be spurious, they prove at least, that these 
writings have been so interpolated, as to make it difficult to 
distinguish what is genuine from what is false."! The cele- 
brated scholar, Semler, who, according to Dr. Marsh, " has 
made a more particular study of ecclesiastical history, perhaps, 
than any man that ever lived," rejects these writings entire- 
ly as fabrications of a later age, than that in which they are 
pretended to have been written. J 

* See archbishop Wake's Preface and Introduction to his trans- 
lation of the Apostolic Fathers. 

t Michaelis, Note to vol. i. c. ii. § 6. 

t See Gen. Rep. vol. i. p. 55; where the opinion of Semler on 
this subject may be found translated from his Novae Observationes 



EPISCOPAL CHURCH. 33 

In regard to the testimony of the later Fathers, it should 
be remembered, when they speak of bishops, they do not 
mean the same kind of officers, as in modern times consti- 
tute the first order of episcopacy. There is no doubt, that 
soon after the age of the apostles, when churches became 
very large, it was found convenient to have presiding offi- 
cers. When public business was transacted, such as the or- 
dination of presbyters, or the choosing of officers, it was 
natural that some person should be appointed to preside. In 
cities, where several churches had sprung up, it was conve- 
nient to have a standing president to preserve the harmony, 
and superintend the concerns of the whole. This president 
would be likely to be selected from among the more distin- 
guished bishops, or presbyters. In length of time, the name 
bishop was confined exclusively to this officer. But it is to 
be observed, that a bishop had no more than a parochial au- 
thority. The president of a single church was called a bishop, 
as well as the president of a larger number. These presidents, 
or bishops, were first chosen by the congregations at large, 
and ordained, or inducted into their offices, by the presbyters. 

Irenseus, whose testimony you bring in favor of episco- 
pac}-, was ordained, according to Basnage, by presbyters 
only, even after the distinctions between bishops and pres- 
byters began to exist ; and this is allowed to have been the 
custom of the church of Alexandria, during the three first 
centuries. At length it became customary to invite neigh- 
boring bishops to aid in this ceremony ; and thus, by de- 
grees, arose the three orders in the ministry, which was af- 
terwards called an episcopacy. 

To make any use of the testimony of the Fathers, we 
must know to what stage this government had advanced, at 
the time when any one of them lived. We must know the 
country in which they lived, and the extent of the church 
of which they speak. The bishop of a single church was 
4 



34 MINISTRY OF THE 

much the same, as the minister of a single parish at the 
present day. Cyprian, bishop of Carthage, had charge of 
only one congregation, and in his epistles he speaks of the 
people joining with him in the discipline of his church, and 
intimates, that the choice of pastors rested with the people.* 

Jerome, who wrote at the beginning of the fifth century, 
says, in his remarks on the epistle to Titus, " among the an- 
cients, priests and bishops were the same, but by degrees the 
care of a church was given to one person, in order to pre- 
vent dissension. And again, " let the bishops know, that 
they are above the priests, more by custom than by the ap- 
pointment of Christ ;" and further, " at the beginning, church- 
es were governed by the common council of presbyters, 
like an aristocracy ; but afterwards, the superintendency was 
given to one of the presbyters, who was then called the 
bishop, and who governed the church, but still with the 
council of the presbyters, "f 

Sir Peter King, Chancellor of England, who examined 
this subject thoroughly, in his Inquiry into the Constitution 
of the Primitive Church, says, " a bishop preached, bap- 
tized, and confirmed, so did a presbyter ; a bishop excom- 
municated, absolved, and ordained, so did a presbyter ; what- 
ever a bishop did, the same did a presbyter ; the particular 
acts of their office were the same. "J Origen mentions 
bishops, but does not allow, that their authority extended 
beyond the congregation over which they were placed ; and 
all that Tertullian says on this subject, is as applicable to 
parochial, as to diocesan, bishops. § 

From this view of the testimony of the Fathers, it is ev- 

* Doddridge's Lectures, Part IX. prop. 150. 

t Opera, vol. vi. p. 198. Anecdotes, p. 24, 54. See Corruptions 
of Christianity, vol. ii. p. 240. 
X Chap. vi. 
§ Doddridge, ubi supra. 



EPISCOPAL CHURCH. 35 

ident, that it affords no proof of the institution of episcopa- 
cy in the primitive ages. If we are to judge from the above 
quotations, it has decidedly a contrary bearing. If you can 
prove from the same Fathers, or from others, that the pres- 
ent form of episcopacy actually existed in the first ages of 
Christianity, it will be, to say the most, a very weak argu- 
ment in favor of the cause. It will show them to contra- 
dict one another, and themselves, and what can more entire- 
ly invalidate their testimony ? 

In many places where there was but one church, bishops 
were parochial ministers, and nothing more ; in other pla- 
ces, where several churches were united, bishops had a sort 
of presiding charge over the whole, with presbyters to aid 
them ; but they discharged no duties, in the immediate ser- 
vice of the church, which did not equally belong to the 
presbyters. In their ecclesiastical functions, they were the 
same as presbyters. Deacons, for along time, seem to have 
taken no part in the ministry, but to have been appointed to 
manage the temporal concerns of religious societies. The 
churches were not all uniform in their mode of government. 
Some churches gave more authority to their bishops than 
others ; and some retained their primitive usages longer than 
others. Doddridge observes, that " the power of the bish- 
ops seems to have prevailed early in Rome ; that of the 
presbytery at Alexandria ; and at Carthage, such a discipline 
as comes nearest to what is now called congregationaHsts."* 
The churches at Alexandria and Carthage gradually declined, 
and the Roman increased. The church of England, and the 
episcopal church of this country, it seems, are a branch of 
this Roman church. 

Since this is the state of the evidence afforded by the 
Fathers, how do you prove your position, " that when the 

* Lectures, vol. ii, p. 354, 



36 MINISTRY OF THE 

church of England undertook to throw off particular doc- 
trines and ceremonies of the church of Rome, which she 
considered as neither taught in scripture, nor consistent with 
purity, she retained, unaltered, the three orders of the min- 
istry, as manifestly belonging to the days of the apostles ; and 
the Protestant Episcopal Church of the United States, re- 
ceived since the independence of this country, the order of 
bishops, through an unbroken and divinely protected succes- 
sion ?" 

How will you prove, in the first place, that the Roman 
church itself was established on a regular succession ? You 
will hardly rely on the unauthenticated account, that the 
apostle Peter lived some time at Rome, and at length was 
crucified there, which even by Origen is considered only a 
tradition. How do you know, that the bishop in whom the 
Roman church originated, was not ordained by presbyters, 
as it is certain such ordinations were common ? To me 
this appears quite as probable as any other supposition. 
How is it ascertained, that even the first bishop of Rome 
was ordained by a bishop, and not by presbyters ? Eusebi- 
us himself, who is considered the highest authority on this 
subject, acknowledges, that it is no easy thing to give any 
further account of the successors to the apostles in the gov- 
ernment of the churches, than what is found in the writ- 
ings of St. Paul.* And is it not still an unsettled question 
in history, who were the first seven bishops of Rome ? Such 
then is the dark and uncertain evidence of the divine suc- 
cession of the stock from which the English church sprang. 

In the next place, is it certain, that the English bishops 
can be traced up to the church of Rome ? In the opinion 
of Dr. Doddridge, it has been very satisfactorily proved by 
Mr. Jones, that, in the year 668, the regular succession of 

* Euseb. Eocles. Hist. 1. ii. c. xxxv. 1. iii. c. iv. as quoted by 
Doddridge, Lee. vol. ii. p, 345, 355. 



EPISCOPAL CHURCH. 37 

bishops had become nearly extinct. Many persons about 
this time were ordained by Aidan and Finan, who were 
monks of the Scottish monastery of Columbanus, and only 
presbyters. They were afterwards made bishops by the 
northern princes, whom they converted, but not by a regu- 
lar episcopal ordination. Many others were made bishops 
from among their converts, but with nothing more than 
presbyterian ordination. Is it not more than possible, that 
the English succession is derived from this source ? 

Again, the validity of archbishop Parker's consecration, 
in the time of queen Elizabeth, is well known to be, at least, 
very questionable ; yet this is the origin of the present English 
succession. Edward the Sixth abolished the Romish form 
of ordination, and substituted a new one in its place, which 
is still retained in the church. The old form was restored 
by queen Mary, but rejected again by Elizabeth, and that 
of Edward adopted. When Parker was nominated to be 
archbishop of Canterbury, in 1559, she issued a commission 
to certain bishops to perform the ceremony of consecration 
according to the prescribed form.* Some of them refused to 
comply, alleging that such a consecration would not be 
valid. She issued another commission to such persons, as 
she knew would not refuse, but whose episcopal authority 
was much to be doubted. The catholics immediately dis- 
puted this consecration, and have almost universally denied 
its validity. They profess to have proved, that Barlow, the 
consecrating bishop, was never himself consecrated. They 
say, that no record of this transaction was found or cited, 
till more than fifty years afterwards, w r hen the Lambeth 
Register was first quoted. And even this register entirely 
destroys the validity of the consecration, by showing it to 
have been performed according to king Edward's ordinal, 
which was not consistent with any former usage of the 
church. 

4* 



38 MINISTRY OF THE 

I shall not pretend to decide on these objections of the 
catholics ; but if well founded, they must prove the inva- 
lidity of Parker's consecration, and the weakness of all pre- 
tensions in the church of England to a divine succession. 

To my mind, these objections, and others, briefly and 
clearly stated in the memoir of the Abbe Renaudot, are con- 
vincing. Some of them are partially removed in Couray- 
er's elaborate answer, but he has by no means cleared the 
subject of difficulties ; and when it is known that he was 
an "apostate monk," as the catholics call him, who wrote 
to gain the favor of an English prince, we can have little 
respect for his candor, or regard for his authority. 

Episcopacy was abolished by an act of parliament, in 
Cromwell's time. All ordinations were then presbyterian, 
and how it is ascertained, that the succesion of episcopal or- 
dinations was not then broken, or at least, that some persons 
were not afterwards consecrated bishops, who, during this 
period, had received only presbyterian ordination ? 

Moreover, it has been the opinion of many of the most 
eminent divines and learned men of the church of England, 
that the superiority of bishops to presbyters was nothing 
more than a human institution, and consequently, that ordi- 
nations by either was valid. 

To the middle of the seventeenth century, it was the pre- 
vailing sentiment of many distinguished divines, that bish- 
ops had no power of ordination or jurisdiction, except in 
conjunction with the presbyters. Tn an article of the treaty 
of Uxbridge, (1644) it was declared, " that the bishops shall 
exercise no act of jurisdiction or ordination, without the con- 
sent and counsel of the presbyters"* Bishop Leighton dis- 
claimed all pretences to the sole power of bishops. One of 
the articles, which he proposed to the dissenting brethren, 

* Bibliotheca Regia, London, 1659, part i. § 4 



EPISCOPAL CHURCH. 39 

in the conference at Paisly, runs thus ; u all church affairs 
shall be managed in presbyteries and synods, by the free vote 
of the presbyters, or the major part of them."* Dr. Burnet, 
in speaking of the power of a bishop, says, " ordinations 
ought not to be so performed by him, as to exclude the 
assistance and concurrence of presbyters, both in the previous 
trial, and in the ordination itself. "| And even Hooker ad- 
mits, that bishops, in the church of Christ, have such au- 
thority, as both to direct other ministers, and to see that 
every one of them should observe that, which their common 
consent hath agreed ow."J These quotations may be seen at 
large, with their references, in the fourth chapter of Sage's 
Vindication. In the same place may be seen references to 
a great many other authors, of the highest authority, who 
express the same sentiments. Among others are Andrews, 
Whitgift, Chillingworth, Usher, Hall, Barrow, Stillinneet, 
Sherlock, Parker, Taylor, Hammond. 

Archbishop Bancroft believed in the validity of ordina- 
tions by Presbyters. The following is from Hickman. 

" Some that had been ordained by mere presbyters, offer- 
ed themselves in King James's time, to be consecrated bish- 
ops in the church of Scotland. Dr. Andrews, bishop of 
Ely, moved this question ; whether they should not first 
be episcopally ordained presbyters, that they might be ca- 
pable of being admitted to the order of bishops ? But arch- 
bishop Bancroft, a most rigid asserter of episcopacy, ans- 
wered ; there was no need of it since ordination by presby- 
ters was valid" § 

* Case of Accommodation, 1671, p. 2. 

t Gilbert Burnet's Conferences, Glasgow, 1673, p. 103, 

| Ecclesiastical Polity, b. vii. § 6. 

§ Pierce's Vindication, p. 167. How does the whole mass of tes- 
timony, which has here been given, agree with the singular asser- 
tion in the book of Festivals and Fasts, that, " throughout the unj. 



40 



MINISTRY OF THE 



From these facts, it must certainly be admitted, that in 
some periods of the English church, ordination by presbyters 
has been considered valid ; and how is it known, that the suc- 
cession of office may not be traced back from the bishops of 
the present day, to those who had been thus ordained ? And 
how can you possibly reconcile the citations, which have 
been made from some of the principal Fathers, with your 
declaration, " that it has been the faith of the universal 
church, without exception, until the period of the Reforma- 
tion, that to the order of bishops alone belongs the power of 
ordaining ministers ? 

To many it is thought not a little strange, that the Eng- 
lish church should set up so high claims to a divinely pro- 
tected succession, and at the same time exhibit such une- 
quivocal manifestations of abhorrence and contempt of the 
venerable mother church, from which it is descended. 
Nothing can exceed the abuse, which it has poured out on 
the church of Rome, ever since the separation. Scarcely 
a theological work appeared in the English language, for the 
two first centuries after this period, which did not contain 
more or less about the horrois and pollutions of popery. 
The Homilies themselves, which were appointed, and are 
still required by the articles, to be read at stated times in 
the churches, are very full and direct on this subject.* The 
whole three sermons against the peril of idolatry are aimed 
at the depravity of the Romish church. How can they, 
who have such an opinion of the church of Rome, suppose 
it to be the true church of the Lord Jesus ? What do they 
find in the ministry of this church, which, according to their 
own account, can convince them, that it has been from its 
origin under a divine influence t Most persons would think 

versal church for fifteen hundred years, no instance occurs of ordi- 
nation by presbijters, that was considered valid I'' p. 45. 
* See Homilies, Fol. 1713. p. 162. 



EPISCOPAL CHURCH. 41 

it a mark of wisdom to say as little as possible about a suc- 
cession which they acknowledge has come through such a 
channel, as the church of Rome is thus described to be. 

Another thing is somewhat puzzling. How can the Eng- 
lish clergy claim their authority from the apostles, when it 
is one of the fundamental doctrines of the church, that it is 
derived from the king ? By an act of parliament at the 
very commencement of the English reformation, it was de- 
creed, that "the king's majesty justly and rightfullly is, 
and ought to be, the supreme head of the church of Eng- 
land"* and according to the thirty -sixth canon, every per- 
son, before he enters the ministry, must acknowledge the 
" king's majesty, under God, to be the only supreme gover- 
nor of the realm, as well in all spiritual or ecclesiastical 
things or causes, as temporal." Has not the king power to 
suspend bishops, and prohibit them from exercising the func- 
tions of their office ? 

Bossuet, bishop of Meaux, and one of the most learned 
of the catholics, has written largely on the English reforma- 
tion, and made it appear, in the most conclusive manner, 
that this church can make no claims to any ecclesiastical 
authority, derived from the catholic church. He has taken 
his historical facts entirely from Burnet, whom no one can 
accuse of partiality for the catholic religion, and whom no 
one will deny to have been an able advocate of the refor- 
mation, " a distinct narrative of which," he says, " makes 
its apology, as well as its history." Yet from the faithful 
history of Burnet, nothing is more clear, than that the Eng- 
lish church, instead of being a stately pillar in the Romish 
episcopacy, was raised out of its ruins. 

In the very outset of the reformation, in the time of 

* See Records and Instruments, No. 2. attached to Courayer's 
Defence. 



42 



MINISTRY OF THE 



Henry the Eighth it was laid down as a maxim, a that the king 
was pope in England." Edward the Sixth retained the same 
authority, and the bishops took out new commissions from 
him, which were to be " revoked at the king's pleasure." 
The bishops held only a precarious power, which was to be 
resigned at the will of the king. They had power to or- 
dain and dismiss ministers, but they were required to do it 
" in his name and under his authority." In short, it was 
decreed in parliament, that u no one could have any juris- 
diction, either temporal, or spiritual, which was not derived 
from the king, as its source. 1 ''* 

Had the English reformers believed in the divine right of 
episcopal jurisdiction, is it possible, that they would thus 
have taken every vestige of power from the bishops, and 
given it into the hands of kings ? But whatever may have 
been their opinions on this subject, it is certain that they 
did not derive, hot profess to derive, their authority from any 
ecclesiastical source. If the bishops were descended from 
the apostles, then it must have been by virtue of this de- 
scent, and this alone, that they possessed spiritual authority. 
It was not an authority of which kings or parliaments could 
deprive them, and it showed a deplorable defection of 
principle, or a pitiable weakness, to bow at the shrine of 
of human greatness, if they were conscious of being bound 

* Oeuvres de Bossuet, Tom. xix. et xx. Historie des Variations 
des Eglises Protestantes, liy. vii. Burnet's History of the reforma- 
tion, Part ii. 

In his concluding remarks on the control of the king, and of the 
civil authority, over the power of the bishops, Bossuet observes, 
" Nul acte ecclesiastique, pas meme ceux qui regardent la predica- 
tion, les censures, la liturgie, les sacremens, et la foi meme, n'a de 
force en Angleterre qu'autant qu'il est approuve et valide par les 
rois ; ce qui au fond donne aux rois plus que la parole, et plus que 
1'administration des sacremens, puisqu'il les rend souverains arbi- 
tres de l'un et de 1'autre." Hist, des Var. Liv. 10. 



EPISCOPAL CHURCH. 43 

by the laws of a divine authority. These men either did 
not believe in the divine succession, or their conduct is in- 
excusable. If their authority was divine, it was permanent; 
and yet they suffered their commissions to be revoked at 
the pleasure of the king, were ordained by rules prescribed 
by him, and ventured to publish no articles of religion, 
which had not received his sanction. All spiritual author- 
ity was effectually subordinate to the temporal ; and how it 
can be argued, that these bishops were acting as the de- 
scendants of the apostles, while the existence of their 
authority, and the extent of their power, depended solely on 
the will of the king, is a question, which I must leave un- 
answered. 

Let us go back still farther. Has not the pope power to 
excommunicate whom he pleases, and annul their ordina- 
tions ? If so, what security is there under his authority 
for episcopal succession, or what is its value ? If the power, 
which it communicates, may be destroyed by human au- 
thority, why may it not be granted by the same authority ? 
A power, which the pope can destroy, is in the fullest 
sense derived from him. There is a memorable example of 
this in the catholic see at Utrecht. All the bishops of this 
see have been regularly consecrated ; but because Dominick 
Varlet, who a hundred years ago consecrated the first bish- 
op, was at that time under the censure of the pope, the 
whole see has ever since been declared schismatical, and 
each successive prelate has regularly received a renewed 
condemnation from the sovereign Pontiff.* A similar ex- 
ample is recorded by Calvin, in the case of Eugenius and 
Amadeus. When by the decree of the council of Basil, Eu- 
genius was deposed, degraded, and pronounced guilty of 

* See the Pastoral Letter of archbishop Marechal, to the con- 
gregation of Norfolk, Virginia, 1819, second edition, Appendix, 
p. 84. 



44 MINISTRY OF THE 

schism, together with all the bishops and cardinals, who 
had united with him in opposing the council, Calvin says, 
the succession of the ministry was at this time virtually 
broken, for, " from the bosom of these heretics and rebels 
have proceeded all the popes, cardinals, bishops, abbots, 
and priests ever since. "* Be this as it may, how can that 
ministry be said to have a divine origin, and be kept up m a 
divine succession, which can be suspended or annulled at 
the pleasure of a king, pope, or council ? 

I have thus gone through with a patient examination of 
the evidence, on which the episcopal church advances its 
singular pretensions to a divine origin and succession. In 
the scriptures I have found nothing, either in the commands 
of our Saviour, or of the apostles, which can justify any class 
of men in assuming to themselvs the claim of being the only 
true church. 

A similar result has followed from the testimony of the 
Fathers, and the history ot the English reformation. First , 
it can be indisputably proved from the Fathers, that the 
churches in the primitive ages were not uniformly governed 
by three orders of ministry ; but frequently by two, and 
sometimes by one. Secondly, bishops were parochial clergy- 
men, in many places at least, and nothing more. Thirdly, 
ordinations were performed by presbyters, especially in the 
case of Irenseus, and for a long time in the church at Alexan- 
dria. Fourthly, no particular account can be given of the 
origin of the church of Rome, or of its first seven bishops. 
Fifthly, the power of the English clergy is confessedly de- 
rived from the king, and not from any church. Sixthly, the 
informality of ordination in the English church was such, 
in the opinion of the Catholics, who are supposed to consti- 
tute the true church, as to destroy all power, that might be 

* Institutes 



EPISCOPAL CHURCH. 45 

transmitted by the episcopal succession. Seventhly , English 
bishops were at an early period consecrated by presbyters, 
and at a much later period, ordination by presbyters was 
considered valid. Finally, the consecration of archbishop 
Parker, who was the beginning of the succession since his 
time, both to English and American bishops, was declared, 
and is still considered by the Catholics, invalid, and was at 
best of a very suspicious and doubtful character. 

These are difficulties in the way of your positions, which 
it can be no easy matter for the most sanguine friends of 
episcopacy to remove. Taking the whole train of evidence 
into consideration, the arguments in favor of the jure divino 
pretensions to episcopacy, when arrayed in all their strength, 
cannot place it on a firmer basis, than conjecture and possi- 
bility. Many contradictions must be reconciled, much 
positive testimony destroyed, and much light brought out of 
darkness, even before this can be done. Is any one willing 
to accede to the extraordinary pretensions, which the epis- 
copal church makes, to a divine origin and succession, on 
grounds so slender and feeble as these ? 

To support such claims, nothing should be considered 
sufficient, but clear, positive, continued, unanswerable evi- 
dence. This evidence is not found in the Bible, or the 
practice of the primitive ages ; it is not found in history, or 
the common sense of mankind ; nor do I believe it can be 
found any where. 

It has not been my object to show that the episcopal 
mode of church government is not a good one, when allowed 
to stand on its proper" foundation. Whether it is well cal- 
culated to promote the great objects of the christian reli- 
gion, and to make effectual the means of salvation in the 
hearts and lives of men, is not a question with which I am 
at present concerned. If it is a government with which the 
people, over whom it is exercised, are pleased, that is enough. 
5 



46 MINISTRY OF THE 

They are the only proper judges. It may perhaps be 
doubted, whether it is so well adapted to the genius and 
spirit of our civil government and institutions, as some 
other form ; yet while it does not interfere with these, and 
while it is allowed to be derived from the christian Avorship- 
pers, who submit to it, I can discover no reason why any 
one should complain. 

It is not the form to which I object, but the pretensions, 
and the improper influence, which the heads of a church, 
professing to be vested by their official character with apos- 
tolical sanctity, will be likely to have on the weaker and 
more credulous part of society. It has been my aim to 
make it appear, that no such pretensions are authoized in 
the scriptures, or sanctioned by the practice of the apostolic 
age. 

Archdeacon Paley, one of the brightest ornaments of the 
episcopal church, long ago placed this subject in its true 
light, in his sermon on the distinction of orders in the church. 
He proves very clearly, that the apostolic usages and direc- 
tions do not warrant any exclusive form of ecclesiastical 
government. He observes, "whilst the precepts of christ- 
ian morality, and the fundamental articles of its faith, are 
for the most part precise and absolute, of perpetual, univer- 
sal, and unalterable obligation ; the laws which respect the 
discipline, instruction and government of the community, 
are delivered in terms so general and indefinite, as to admit 
of an application adapted to the mutable condition, and va- 
rying exigencies of the christian church." 

The reason for this is obvious. The christian religion 
was intended for all countries, and all times ; and it was 
necessary that its external institutions should be of so gene- 
ral a nature, as to be adapted to the local circumstances, 
peculiar situation, and established laws of different commu- 
nities. It was the end, and not the means, which our Sa- 



EPISCOPAL CHURCH. 47 

viour and his apostles had in view. Principles of faith, rules 
of action, the spirit of the gospel, the temper of love, piety 
and holiness, were to be established in the minds and hearts 
of men. How this object could best be effected under dif- 
ferent circumstances, was left to the judgment and prudence 
of good men. * The bishop of Lincoln advances similar 
sentiments. | Although he labors to prove episcopacy to 
be an apostolic institution, he does not consider it of divine 
origin. As God has prescribed no particular mode of civil 
government, so he acknowledges, that the commands and 
precepts of the New Testament do not enjoin any particular 
form of ecclesiastical polity. 

Locke, who was also an episcopalian, uses still stronger 
language. " A church," says he, " I take to be a society, 
joining themselves together of their own accord, in order to 
the public worship of God, in such a manner as they shall 
judge acceptable to him, and effectual to the salvation of 
their souls." After having stated the objection offered by 
some, that no society can be regarded as a true church, un- 
less it have in it a presbyter or bishop, deriving his author- 

* It is not a little amusing to see with what raptures the editor 
of Nelson's work on Festivals and Fasts speaks of Law's three let- 
ters to bishop Hoadly. He says they form a conclusive answer 
to archdeacon Paley, " expose his dangerous errors, detect the 
fallacy of his arguments, and drive him humbled from the strong 
holds in which he fancied himself secure !" And in what way is 
this wonderful achievement attained? By taking for granted the 
very thing to be proved, namely, that the " christian ministry is a 
divine, positive institution," and that the form of this institution 
was originally episcopal. Starting with these premises, it requires 
not much skill in logic to draw the inference, that episcopacv is of 
divine origin, and therefore unchangeable. And this is the amount 
of Law's argument. 

t Elements of Christian Theology, vol. ii. p. 376, et seqq. as 
quoted by Dr. Rees, Cycl. Art. Bishop. 



48 MINISTRY OF THE 

ity from the apostles, he goes on to remark ; " to those who 
make this objection, I answer, let them show me the edict 
by which Christ has imposed that law on his church, and 
let not any man think me impertinent, if in a thing of this 
consequence, I require that the terms of the edict be very 
express and positive. " # It will be well for all persons, 
who believe in the divine institution of any particular order 
of ministry, and that this order still remains, to search 
carefully and find such an edict before they are very posi- 
tive, or begin to seek for arguments from foreign and unau- 
thenticated sources. 

As no rules are prescribed in the scriptures on this sub- 
ject, we have reason to think, that all denominations of 
christians are fully authorised to form such regulations for 
the government of their churches, as they may think best 
calculated to promote the great interests of religion. While 
every thing is done " decently and in order," while they 
endeavor to imbibe the spirit of the gospel, and acquire the 
temper, as well as copy the example of the apostles, they 
will be conforming to the will of God, and the precepts of 
our Saviour. 

All the duties requisite for personal holiness, and accep- 
tance with God, are clearly enjoined in the scriptures ; but 
nothing is said about the manner in which ministers of the 
gospel shall be chosen, or the form in which they shall be 
initiated into their office. We know the apostles, and their 
immediate successors, were not guided by any uniform rules 
in this respect, and we have no reasons for supposing, that 
any such rules were intended to be applied to christians of 
later times. There is not a single positive direction in the 
whole word of God on the subject. Every well ordered 
christian community has a right to establish such religious 

* Letters on Toleration. 



EPISCOPAL CHURCH. 49 

institutions, as may be best suited to its condition. The 
people of such a community have a right to institute such a 
form of ecclesiastical government, and appoint such officers, 
as they shall deem expedient. 

The government of the primitive church at Jerusalem, 
was easentially a government of the people. If we are to fol- 
low example, we certainly can have none of higher authority 
than this. It was a church to which the apostles them- 
selves belonged. If such was the example of the apostles, 
we cannot be in an error, if we make such our practice. 
Since the church was governed by the people at that time, 
why should it not be governed in the same way now ? Let 
the people adopt such a form of government as they choose ; 
but still, let it be understood as resting with them, and not 
be considered as imposed by any pretensions to divine au- 
thority. If they are pleased with the episcopal form, let 
them quietly enjoy it. If they prefer to be governed by as- 
sociations, assemblies, synods, councils, or consociations, 
let them have the liberty of making this choice. If they think 
it more consonant to the usages of the first christians and 
more consistent with the principles of religious freedom, to 
unite in seperate societies, and form such regulations as are 
suited to their circumstances, let them not be disturbed, or 
called schismatics, because they think this a preferable 
mode. 

Civil governments, and the conditions of society, will no 
doubt, in some degree, affect ecclesiastical institutions. The 
form of church government, which is best in one country, 
may not always be the best in another ; yet in no country, 
and under no circumstances, can any number of christians 
justly be prohibited from uniting to worship God after such 
a form as they think best, provided they do not disturb the 
peace of society, or encroach on the civil power. 

All ministers appointed by the consent and approbation of 
5* 



50 MINISTRY OF THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH. 

he people, whom they are to teach, are regularly appoint- 
ed ; all ministers ordained according to such forms, as the 
people shall think consistent with the general instructions 
and tenor of the scriptures, and best calculated to give in- 
terest and solemnity to the occasion, are regularly ordained. 
And such persons have as high a commission to administer 
the ordinances of the christian religion, and to discharge all 
the duties of the ministerial office, as they could receive 
from any authority residing in the archbishop of Canterbury, 
or the incumbent of the Holy See at Rome, 



LETTER- II. 



ON THE RITUAL OF THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH. 



.Reverend and dear sir, 

The present letter I shall devote to a consideration of 
some of the ceremonies and forms contained in the ritual 
of the Episcopal Church. You profess it to he the princi- 
pal object of your Discourse, to let your hearers know, 
a why they are Protestant Episcopalians," in distinction 
from other denominations of christians. In discharging this 
duty, however well you may have succeeded in convincing 
your hearers of the true grounds of their faith, and of the 
propriety of the forms which they adopt in religious ser- 
vices, you have passed over many things, which, I am in- 
clined to think, the public in general, to whom you have 
submitted your discourse, will not readily understand, or 
receive, without a further explanation. 

You have omitted entirely the Ritual of the church,which, 
by many, is thought to contain things not altogether con- 
formable to scripture, or calculated to ensure a truly christ- 
ian practice. Good men, and pious christians, have seen in 
some of the ceremonies of the church a strange leaning to 
the practices of darker times, when infallibility, papal su- 
premacy, and the decrees of councils, were among the first 
articles of the believer's creed. They have seen an unac- 



52 ' RITUAL OF THE CHURCH. 

countable departure from the simplicity of the gospel, and 
the usages of the first christians. 

Two positive ordinances only are enjoined in the scrip- 
tures, namely Baptism, and the Lord's Supper. It is to be 
observed, that in neither of these, are any particular forms 
prescribed, in which it is required they shall be adminis- 
tered. We are to baptize with water ; to eat bread and 
drink wine in remembrance of Christ. We have no other 
directions. Nothing is said about time, place, or manner. 
As these ordinances were to be perpetual, and were intended 
for all the followers of Christ, it was necessary that they 
should be such, as could be complied with in every age and 
country, and in every condition of civil society. But had 
any specific forms been pointed out, there might be circum- 
stances under which they could not be followed. When- 
ever baptism is administered with water, in the name of the 
Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and whenever the com- 
munion of the Lord's Supper is partaken w T ith sincerity, in 
remembrance of Christ, the command of our Saviour will 
be obeyed, and these ordinances will be valid, whatever ex- 
ternal forms it maybe found expedient to adopt in their ad- 
ministation. 

One of the mysteries in the ritual of the episcopal church, 
which needs explaining to my understanding, and probably 
to that of most of your readers, is the form of baptism. In 
this ceremony, by what authority, except the superstition 
of the dark ages, is the minister required to make, on the 
forehead of the person baptized, " the sign of the cross ?" 
This relic of ancient superstition is not sanctioned by a single 
text of scripture, and why should it still be preserved ? 
Bishop Burnet says, in speaking of the origin of this prac- 
tice, u with the use of it, the devil was adjured to go out of 
the person baptized ;" and Lactantius, " nor can the devils 
approach to them, on whom they see this heavenly mark ; 



RITUAL OF THE CHURCH. 53 

nor can they hurt those, whom this heavenly sign, as an 
impregnable fortress, defends."* Whether such is the pre- 
sent belief of the church, I cannot say, but it is certain, there 
1S nothing in the Bible, which can warrant this singular ap- 
pendage to the ceremony of baptism, and the only effect, 
which so unscriptural a practice can produce, is to perpetuate 
error and superstition. 

Another singular part of this ceremony in the baptism of 
infants, is, that persons, who are not the parents of the 
child, are allowed, and indeed, by a canon of the English 
church, such are required to become sureties or sponsors for 
the child. | The American Convention improved upon this 
canon, and agreed that " parents shall be admitted as spon- 
sors, if it be desired." But when there are parents, let it 
be seriously asked, why should any other persons be allowed 
to take upon themselves this important charge ? 

The minister says to the sponsors, " this infant must faith- 
fully for his part promise by you that are his sureties, (until 
he come of age to take it upon himself) that he will re- 
nounce the devil and all his works, and constantly believe 
God's holy word, and obediently keep his commandments." 
This is a very serious and solemn engagement on the part of 
the sponsors ; and when circumstances prevent their having 
any influence over the child, as must often happen, how are 
they to keep it ? They are required, also, " to provide that 
the child may learn the creed, the Lord's prayer, and the 
ten commandments." As there is no authority in scripture 

* Lact. Listit. lib. iv. c. xxvii. and Peirce's Vindication, p. 157. 
It was formerly the custom for the priest to exorcise the persons to 
be baptized, " by laying his hands on their heads, and breathing in 
their faces, to expel the devil, and inspire them with the Holy 
Spirit." See Edinb. Encyc. Art. Baptism. 

t Canon xxix. " No parent shall be admitted to answer as god- 
father for his own child." 



54 RITUAL OF THE CHURCH. 

for this practice, why should the church expose any to the 
danger of violating engagements so solemn as these, or of 
promising what they cannot perform ?* 

But the part of the ceremony which is the most excep- 
tionable, and which, indeed, cannot but be productive of 
dangerous consequences, is that in which are declared the 
nature and objects of the institution. The minister prays, 
that the child, " being delivered from the icralh of God, may 
be received into the ark of Christ's church," and that he 
u may receive remission of sin by spiritual regeneration." From 
these expressions it seems, that before baptism, the church 
considers all infants under the wrath of God, and guilty of 
sin, although they have never done a single action with the 
consciousness of an evil intention. It is furthermore im- 
plied, that the mere ceremony of baptism takes away the 
guilt of sin, and appeases the wrath of God. 

After the ceremony is performed with water and the sign 
of the cross, the minister says, " this child is regenerate, and 
grafted into the body of Christ's church." The same ex- 
pressions are used in baptizing persons advanced to maturer 
age. 

The above quotations are from the Book of Common 
Prayer, authorized by the American Convention. The fol- 
lowing is contained in the English Prayer Book, but was 

* In the time of the apostles, all persons were baptized as soon 
as they were converted to the christian religion. In the second 
century, some particular qualifications began to be thought necessa- 
ry, as a preparation for this ceremony. Persons were then first ap- 
pointed to give such preparatory instructions as were required ; and 
these persons were called sponsors. This practice does not appear 
to have extended to infants till the fourth century. About the same 
time, as nearly as can be ascertained, the sign of the crass began 
first to be employed. See New Edinb. Encyckpeed. vol. iii. p. 236. 

It appears, therefore, that for a long time, it was the duty of 
sponsors to prepaie persons for baptism, and not for confirmation. 



RITUAL OF THE CHURCH. 55 

omitted by the convention. In the service of private bap- 
tism, after the baptismal words are pronounced, the minis- 
ter is made to say, " this child being born in original sin, and 
in the wrath of God, is now by the laver of regeneration in 
baptism received into the number of the children of God, 
and heirs of eternal life." Why this was left out of the 
American prayer book we are not told. The language is a 
little stronger than is used in other parts of the baptismal 
service, but the sentiments are presisely the same. 

It is the doctrine of the episcopal church, therefore, that 
the simple act of baptism washes away all former sins, re- 
stores the persons baptized to the favor of God, and makes 
them heirs of salvation. This is clearly stated in the twenty 
seventh article, which says, " Baptism is not only a sign 
of professsion, and mark of difference, whereby christian 
men are discerned from others that be not christened ; but 
it is also a sign of regeneration, or new birth, whereby, as by 
an instrument they that receive baptism rightly are grafted 
into the church ; the promises of the forgiveness of sin, and 
of our adoption to be the sons of God, are visibly signed and 
sealed.'''' In the catechism, which is to be repeated by ev- 
ery child before confirmation, baptism is said to be " a death 
unto sin, and a new birth unto righteousness ; for being by na- 
ture born in sin, and the children of wrath, we are hereby 
made the children of grace." The bishop of Lincoln has 
written a chapter to prove, that " the words regeneration, 
and born again, are in scripture applied to the one immediute 
effect of baptism once administered, and are never used as sy- 
nonymous to repentance or reformution of a christian."* He 
says further, that such is the doctrine of the " Liturgy, Ar- 
ticles, and Homilies." 

It is scarcely necessary to remark on this doctrine. Eve* 

* Refutation of Calvinism, seventh edition, p. 87. 



56 RITUAL OF THE CHURCH. 

ry one must see its dangerous tendency. Nothing is said 
about the sincerity, the moral character, or religious inten- 
tions of the person baptized. He may be a hypocrite, he 
may be wicked and abandoned, without any actual change 
of heart, or any desire to change, and yet the ceremony will 
be equally effectual in taking away the guilt of sin, and ma- 
king him heir to the promises of eternal life. Hence a man 
who has lived to an old age, in every excess of wickedness, 
and has never been baptized, may obtain a pardon of all his 
past sins, and secure the reward of salvation, by having the 
ceremony of baptism performed in his dying moments. 
What other tendency can such a doctrine have, than to en- 
courage men in wickedness, and to deceive them with false 
hopes ?* 

It was no doubt this doctrine of the church, which led 
Mr. Dodwell to the very strange positions, wmich he has 
advanced in his Epistolary Discourses. He maintained that 

* The case of Constantine the Great is a memorable one. Al- 
though he made pretensions to much warmth of zeal in the cause 
of Christianity, he delayed baptism till a short time before his death. 
After a life stained with wickedness and murder, and during the 
time of an alarming sickness, he resorted to the ceremony of bap- 
tism, as an expiation of all his sins, and a full preparation for heav- 
en. This example was often followed. Many persons thought it 
prudent not to hasten a ceremony, which had the power of washing 
out the stains of former guilt, but which could not be repeated. 

It was the opinion of Chrysostom, that baptism took away the 
guilt of all passed trangressions, but did not secure the person 
against future sin. 

" Car bien que ce sacrement emporte les crimes passes, la source 
de ces crimes n'est point tarie." 

" Le bapteme lave le peche ; mais etouffez, s'il se peut, dans vo- 
tre ame I'inclination au mal." Les Homel. des Chrysost. Trad, par 
Maucroix, Paris, 1671, p. 333, 334. 

This agrees very nearly with the opinion of the church, as ex- 
pressed in the Book of Common Prayer. 



RITUAL OF THE CHURCH. 57 

the soul is naturally mortal, but is immortalized by its union 
with the divine baptismal spirit ; and that " none, since the 
apostles, have the power of conferring this immortalizing 
spirit, excepting only the bishops." 

It must be acknowledged, that the entire form of bap- 
tism, as practised in the episcopal church, is a wide depart- 
ure from the simplicity of the gospel. No particular form 
is there prescribed. Nothing is said about sponsors, or the 
sign of the cross ; " renouncing the devil and all his works," 
or learning a creed. Why then should we darken and en- 
cumber this ceremony with these unscriptural additions ? 
And above all, nothing is said, from which it is safe for us 
to infer, that the mere ceremony of baptism will wash away 
our sins, and purify our natures. We are there told, that 
the conditions of salvation are faith, repentance, and a good 
life. • 

Some persons, aware of the consequence of this doctrine 
as received by the church, have endeavored to modify it, 
and have reminded us that the contemplated effects will fol- 
low only on condition of the baptism being " rightly re- 
ceived." But no such conditions are mentioned in the bap- 
tismal service. The persons to whom baptism is adminis- 
tered are never told, that it will be ineffectual if they do not 
receive it rightly. They are made to understand by posi- 
tive declarations, that they are " regenerate, and grafted into 
the body of Christ's church." Infants, in particular, have 
no volition in this ceremony. Whenever they receive bap- 
tism, they cannot but receive it rightly ; and if the effects 
above mentioned are not always supposed to follow, the 
words in which they are expressed are unmeaning, and 
should not be used. 

But the truth is, it is evident from the article in which 
this condition is found, that it does not refer to the disposi- 
tion, or spiritual state of the person baptized, but to the 



58 BITUAL OF THE CHURCH. 

manner in which the ceremony is performed. To receive 
baptism rightly, is to receive it at the hands of a proper per- 
son, and according to the established forms of the church. 
The consequences of this ordinance, as it is required to be 
practised in the baptismal service, will not, therefore, in any 
sense be done away by this clause in the twenty-seventh 
article.* 

Another ceremony in the episcopal church, and one which 
has no direct scriptural authority, is confirmation. All per- 
sons, who have been baptized when infants, are required, 
after they have learnt the creed, the Lord's prayer, and the 
ten commandments, to be brought before the bishop, and to 
be confirmed, before they can partake of the communion of 
the Lord's Supper Did our Saviour make any such condi- 
tions, when he instituted this rite ? Where does he say, it 
is necessary for any to be confirmed by a bishop before they 
can become his disciples, and be made partakers of this 
privilege ? 

Moreover, this ceremony of confirmation is exceedingly 
exceptionable in itself. In a prayer on this occasion, the 

* The doctrine and form of baptism are taken almost literally 
from the Romish church. The idea, that this ceremony washed 
away original sin, was early conceived, and has long been an es- 
tablished doctrine in the church of Rome. 

In a catechism published by the bishop of Meaux for hisdiocess, 
the following are said to be the effects of baptism. " It frees the 
person baptized from original sin, and from the other sins, which 
he may have committed after his birth; — it takes away the sin, 
which we brought with us into the world, and gives us a new life." 
The person to be baptized is made to " renounce the devil, and all 
his pomps, and all his works." fNe renoncez-vous pas au diable, 
et a toutes ses pompes, et a toutes ses ouvres ? On repond ; j'y re- 
nonce. ) Oeuvres de Bossuet, Versailles, 3815, Tom. vi. p. 39. 

From these quotations it will be seen, that there is no essential 
difference, in regard to the nature and form of this ceremony, 
between the Protestant Episcopal Church, and the Church of Rome. 



RITUAL OF THE CHURCH. 59 

bishop says, " we make our humble supplications unto thee 
for these thy servants, upon whom, after the example of the 
holy apostles, we have now laid our hands, to certify themby 
this sign, of thy favor and gracious goodness towards them." 
From this it would appear, that bishops are to be consider- 
ed as communicating the same powers, and conferring the 
same blessings, as did the apostles. In fact, it is making 
them in this respect equal to the apostles. We have al- 
ready seen, that by the ceremony of baptism, they are sup- 
posed to have the power of procuring a remission of sins ; 
and here we are told, that by laying their hands on the 
heads of certain persons, they give a sure sign of these same 
persons receiving the special grace of God. 

Do bishops, indeed, imagine themselves to be not only 
spiritual descendants of the apostles, but endowed with the 
same powers ? Let them give some of the evidences, 
which the apostles gave, of these wonderful endowments. 
Let them heal the sick, perform miracles, speak in various 
tongues, and confer these gifts on others. When they have 
done this, I have no doubt, that all will acknowledge the 
reality of their high and extraordinary pretensions, and yield 
to their authority. Until they give some such evidence, 
they cannot be surprised, that many should reject the validi- 
ty of their claims, and choose to consult and obey the scrip- 
tures, rather than be guided by human forms, which have 
no other sanction, than the authority of men. 

Whenever laying on of hands is mentioned in the New 
Testament, it implies either a communication of extraordi- 
nary gifts, or an initiation into some office. When Peter 
and John " laid their hands on the Samaritan converts, they 
received the Holy Spirit." Acts viii 17. When the apos- 
tles laid their hands on the seven persons, who were ap- 
pointed to aid in taking care of the poor, (Acts vi 6.) 
there is no reason to suppose it was anything more than a 



60 RITUAL OF THE CHURCH. 

form of induction into office. Nothing is said of their re- 
ceiving spiritual gifts ; nor did the duties of their office re- 
quire any. 

Paul writes to Timothy thus, " neglect not the gift, that 
is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the lay- 
ing on of the hands of the presbytery." 1 Tim. iv. 14. In 
this case, the laying on of hands seems to have been a form, 
by which Timothy was introduced into the ministry, as 
well as a means of conferring some spiritual gift. As those, 
who are intended for confirmation, are not designed to be 
introduced into any office, if this ceremony means anything, 
it must imply a communication of extraordinary gifts from 
the bishop. But no bishop has ever yet made it appear, 
that he possessed any such gifts himself. How then can 
he communicate them to others ?* 

* The ceremony of confirmation is taken, without much altera- 
tion from the church of Rome. It is there required to be perform- 
ed by a. bishop, and is said to confer the gift of the holy spirit, and 
strengthen the grace, which was received at baptism. The bishop 
" places his hands on the persons, whom he is about to confirm, 
and invokes the holy spirit to descend upon them with its gifts." 
The Protestant Episcopal Church has omitted the " holy chrism," 
which the catholics think a very important part of the ceremony. 
This is a mixture of oil and balm, with which the bishop makes 
a cross on the forehead of the person confirmed, and is intended 
" to show, that no one ought to be ashamed of Christ." Catechis- 
me de Bossuet, Oeuv. Tom. vi. p. 40; et Exposition de la Doctrine 
de L'Eglise Catholique, Oeuv. Tom. xviii. p. 104. 

The sign of the cross was at first adopted by the English church, 
according to Burnet, in the "ceremony of confirmation, and in the 
consecration of the sacramental elements,'' but it was afterwards 
suppressed; " Nor can I devise," says Bossuet, " why it was re- 
tained only in baptism." Hist, des Var. liv. vii. § 90. 

In speaking of this ceremony, Cave observes, it was " usually 
performed with unction, the person confirmed being anointed by 



RITUAL OF THE CHURCH. 61 

Similar remarks may be made on the ordination service of 
the episcopal church. It implies a power in the bishop of 
conferring the Holy Spirit. In one part of the service the 
bishop says, " come Holy Ghost, our souls inspire," and 
when he has laid his hands on the head of the person 
to be ordained a priest, he says, " receive the Holy Ghost 
for the office and work of a priest in the church of God, 
now committed unto thee by the imposition of our hands ; — 
whose sins thou dost forgive, they are forgiven ; and whose 
sins thou dost retain, they are retained." 

This is going many steps farther, than in the ceremony 
of confirmation The bishop not only pretends to communi- 
cate the holy spirit, but also the power of forgiving sins. 
u Whose sins thou dost forgive they are forgiven." Can 
there be a higher stretch of human presumption ? It is 
assuming the character and authority of our Saviour. He 
empowered his apostles to forgive sins. Do bishops, indeed, 
think themselves, in their official capacity, not only equal 
to the apostles, but to the Saviour of the world ? Where 
will this end ? Every minister of the episcopal church, 
who believes there is any meaning in the forms of ordina- 
tion must think he possesses the power of forgiving sins. 
No matter what his character maybe, he possesses this pow- 
er by virtue of his office. This is expressly acknowledged 
by Nelson, in his chapter on the Festival of Whitsunday, 
" Though all men," says he, " that are in holy offices ought 
to lead holy lives, yet a failure in duty is not a forfeiture of 

the bishop, or in his absence by an inferior minister." Cave's Primit. 
Christianity, chap, x. p. 208, seventh edition, London, 1714. 

From this account it appears, that confirmation was sometimes 
performed in ancient times by the inferior clergy, and with unc- 
tion, neither of which is at present allowed in the Protestant Epis- 
copal Church. 

6* 



62 RITUAL OF THE CHURCH. 

authority?''* What doctrine could more effectually promote 
a spirit of pride and presumption in the minister, and im- 
morality in the people ? The wicked man has only to re- 
sort to his minister to soothe the achings of a guilty con- 
science, and receive the assurance of divine forgiveness. 
It is well, that people of the present day have too much 
good sense, and too little credulity, to be deceived into so 
dangerous an error ; but it would be better if such forms as 
are calculated to deceive, and have an immoral tendency, 
were abolished. 

In the English Book of Common Prayer, the minister is 
required, when he visits sick persons, to absolve them from 
their sins, "if they humbly and heartily desire it." After 
imploring the Lord Jesus to forgive the offences of the sick 
person, the minister is directed to say, " by his authority 
committed to me, I absolve thee from all thy sins, in the 
name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy 
Ghost." This form of absolution was omitted by the 
American convention. But it is not easy to tell the reason ; 
for if a bishop can empower a minister to forgive sins, the 
same minister can certainly exercise this power for the 
benefit of sick persons, as well as others. 

All that part of the Book of Common Prayer, which re- 
lates to baptism, confirmation, ordination, consecration, and 
visiting the sick, carries with it the supposition, that bish- 
ops have the power of communicating the holy spirit, and 
ministers of forgiving sins, which few persons of the present 
day, who read the scriptures, consult their understandings, 
or respect the principles of common sense, will be ready to 
allow. 

I have dwelt the longer on these topics, as they have an 
intimate connexion with the subject of the preceeding letter. 

* Companion for the Festivals and Fasts, New York, 1817, 
p. 213. 



RITUAL OF THE CHURCH. 63 

The unscriptural parts of these ceremonies have evidently 
grown out of the notion of the apostolic character of the 
ministry. They afford a comment on that doctrine, which 
is well worthy of notice. As the ministers descended from 
the apostles, it is taken for granted, that they possess the 
same qualifications; and the rules of their office seem to 
have been formed on this supposition. When it is recol- 
lected by what a precarious tenure the episcopal clergy 
hold their claims to the apostolic dignity, it will be seen 
how singularly inappropriate and presuming are many parts 
of the ceremonies, which have just been considered. That 
such errors should have crept into the church in the days 
ignorance and darkness is not so wonderful ; but that men 
should still be found in an enlightened and free community, 
who defend and cling to them, is not less unaccountable than 
surprising. 

Your remarks on the expediency and utility of forms of 
prayer are not without weight. If we ever give utterance 
to our feelings in chaste, appropriate, and solemn language, 
it should be in our addresses to the Deity. If we ever sup- 
press the vain ambition of using lofty phrases, high sound- 
ing epithets, and an unnecessary abundance of words, it 
should be then We cannot study too much to make our 
language simple, plain, forcible, and direct. In those reli- 
gious exercises, in which large numbers unite, and where 
the prayers are intended to express the wants and the peti- 
tions of the whole, there can certainly be no impropriety in 
using a preconceived form, composed in such general terms, 
as to be adapted to a promiscuous assembly. No prayer in 
a public assembly is appropriate, unless ever}- individual 
present can unite in every part. It may sometimes happen, 
that the feelings of the speaker, and his want of aptness in 
arranging and combining his thoughts, may lead him into 
irrelevant expressions, and such as are not adapteJ to 



64 RITUAL OF THE CHURCH. 

the occasion. This is the only inconvenience, that can 
arise from extemporaneous prayers ; and, to prevent this, 
it may be expedient sometimes to have studied forms. 

It should be remembered, however, that forms in religion 
are useful, as far as they promote a virtuous conduct, and 
vital godliness ; but beyond this they are injurious. It is 
rightful and good to have order and system in our religious 
institutions and services. But we must take care not to 
neglect the reality for the form, the substance for the shad- 
ow. There is danger, that by treading in the same steps 
from day to day, we shall at length persuade ourselves, that 
we walk in the only true path. We must be careful not 
to let the feeling grow upon us, that when we perform a 
ceremony, we necessarily do a religious act. 

Reading a prayer is not always praying, any more than 
the simple act of spending two hours in a church is reli- 
gious worship. If the soul be not drawn out to God, and 
impressed with a consciousness of his presence ; if the heart 
and affections be not warm with a lively sense of his good- 
ness ; if all the faculties be not humbled with a feeling of 
reverence and submission, there is no devotion, however 
much ceremony there may be in standing and sitting, re- 
peating forms,reading,or chanting. And the sincere, humble, 
penitent soul, can offer up praise and thanksgiving to God, 
acknowledge his dominion, implore his mercy, and render 
him an acceptable service at all times, and in all places, in 
such terms as the overflowings of a devotional spirit may 
dictate. The scriptures have not informed us what precise 
acts shall be considered worship. They have assured us 
that sincere worship must spring from the heart, but they 
have prescribed no particular mode in which we shall ex- 
press our emotions of gratitude, thanksgiving, praise, de- 
pendence, and submission. This is left to the discretion 



RITUAL OF THE CHURCH. 65 

of every christian. Is it only demanded of us, that we be 
sincere. 

It is not a principal object of prayer to express devotional 
feelings ? And what is devotion without fervor, earnestness, 
and an impressive sense of the presence and inspection of 
God ? Is it not much better, that we should have the life, 
the spirit of prayer, than the form ? God looks into the 
heart, and regards the sentiments we cherish there, and not 
the modes we use in disclosing them. These modes should 
be such, as to enable us to retain the most lively emotions 
of a pious and holy temper, at the same time that we use 
our best endeavors to offer up our devotions in appropriate 
and expressive language. To speak words without feeling 
their full force, or being warmed by the sentiments they 
convey, is not devotion. Prayers repeated every sabbath 
from year to year in the same church, must in the nature of 
things lose much of their effect. Habit will diminish the 
irksomeness of repetition, but it is to be feared, that the 
words will too often pass through the mind, while the 
thoughts are wandering. 

There is another objection, which lies heavily against 
most forms of prayer, and from which the Liturgy of the 
church, with all its acknowledged excellencies in many re- 
spects, is by no means free, ISo address should ever be 
publicly made to the Deity, in which every christian, of 
every denomination, cannot cordially and devoutly join It 
is not an occasion which should be employed to introduce 
dogmatical theology, or abstruse metaphysical distinctions. 
All the worshippers of God should assemble before him, 
u in the unity of the spirit and the bond of peace." Names 
should be done away, and the distinguishing tenets of sects 
should be forgotten. Is this true of all the prayers of the 
episcopal church, and especially of the Litany ? Are there 
not many conscientious and devout christans, whose minds 



66 RITUAL OF THE CHURCH. 

revolt at the kind of worship there rendered, when they re- 
collect the command of our Saviour, "thou shalt worship 
the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve ?" This 
objection, which arises from the habit of conforming prayers 
to the views of a sect, bears equally strong against extem- 
poraneous prayers, which partake of this character. An 
important difference is, that when forms become established, 
and are often repeated in churches, they are likely to pro- 
duce more extensive injury to the cause of truth and piety. 
When you say, that " with respect to social worship of 
every description, the doctrine and practice of the church 
universal are decidedly in favor of preconceived forms," and 
speak of the " lawfulness of forms being established by 
divine appointment ," I hardly know how to understand 
you. If, by the " church universal," you mean all the 
churches of Christ, your statement is of course incorrect, 
because a great portion of them do not use set forms. If 
you mean those churches only, which hold to three orders 
in the ministry, I know not why you call them the "church 
universal." Or is it to be understood, that you consider all 
those denominations of christians, who do not adopt this 
mode of government, as being without the pale of the 
church ? 

To prove forms of prayer to have been u established by 
divine appointment," you quote the general practice of 
singing psalms and hymns in churches, and say, " the 
Book of Psalms was inspired by the Holy Ghost for the 
use of the congregation." This may be true, but it affords 
no proof in regard to forms of prayer. Did our Saviour 
use a form in the garden of Gethsemane, or the apostles in 
their public or private devotions ? There is no evidence 
of such a fact ; and if forms of prayer are to be defended on 
any ground, it must be that of utility and expediency, and not 
of divine authority. While we pray from the heart, and 



RITUAL OF THE CHURCH. 67 

lift up our souls to God in spirit and truth, our prayers 
will be heard, in whatever words they maybe expressed, or 
in whatever forms they may be offered. 

I cannot forbear saying a word on another topic, which 
you connect with the part of your discourse,which I am now 
considering. I mean the privilege of women to associate 
for religious exercises. In speaking of this subject, you 
were certainly betrayed into a warmth, which is not 
quite in accordance with the mild and equable spirit 
discoverable in almost every other part of your sermon. 

These are your words. " My brethren, when I consider 
that our God and Saviour has appointed a ministry espe- 
cially to serve in religious assemblies ; that this ministry 
exists in every church in this city ; — when I mark the re- 
tiring, the humble, the docile traits of character, which the 
sacred writings attribute to christian women ; when I read 
the words of St. Paul to a church he had himself planted, 
' let your women keep silence in churches, for it is not 
permitted unto them to speak, for it is a shame for women 
to speak in the church ;' — when I consider these, and other 
express declarations to the same effect, I cannot hesitate 
about the inexpediency of those meetings, in which females 
meet together, not to use the authorized prayers of the church, 
but publicly to utter their own extempore effusions. The 
spirit of the church institutions, prescribing and providing a 
preconceived town, frowns upon them. The language of St. 
Paul seems explicitly to discountenance them." 

This language you must allow is very warm. Suppose 
there were reasons why the apostle should write as he 
did, respecting the Corinthian women ; does it follow that 
the same reasons exist at the present day, and in a totally 
different state of society ? Besides, if women were never to 
speak in religious assemblies, even in those times, why did 
St. Paul, in the same epistle from which 3-ou have quoted 



68 RITUAL OF THE CHURCH. 

the above text, intimate that " they should not pray or 
prophecy with their heads uncovered." This text is a 
proof, that women were not excluded from speaking. 

Mr. Locke explains this subject much more favorably and 
consistently, than the learned authors whom you have 
quoted.* He considers the directions of the apostles to have 
reference to order in public assemblies. To prevent dis- 
turbance and confusion, the women were required to yield 
precedence to the men, and not to speak while they were 
speaking. Some disorders, it would seem, had arisen by not 
having this point settled. This construction is rendered in 
the highest degree probable,by the manner in which the apos- 
tle speaks in the context. He first says, "God is not the au- 
thor of confusion, but of peace," and after giving the direc- 
tions about women's speaking,he concludes, "let all things be 
done decently and in order." 1 Cor. xiv. 40. It is evident, 
therefore, that the apostle did not intend to prohibit women 
from taking an active part in religious exercises on proper 
occasions. And even if the contrary were proved, it would not 
follow from any just principles of reasoning, that the same 
prohibition was to be extended to the women of all ages of 
the world. 

Where there are stated periods of public worship, and a 
regular ministry, I allow it would be more likely to pro- 
mote the good order of society, and the happiness of in- 
dividuals, if all christians could think they have done their 
duty, when they have punctually and conscientiously con- 
formed to established usages, than it would to neglect the 
necessary and important avocations of life to assemble at ir- 
regular times for religious worship. Yet our religion is a 
religion of freedom. All persons have a right to worship 
God in such a way, and at such iimes, as their feelings and 

* See Locke's Notes on 1 Cor. c. xi, v. 5. 



RITUAL OF THE CHURCH. 59 

consciences dictate. If we have a natural right, this is 
one. It does not depend on any compact, civil obligations, 
or the sanction of laws. Women have their peculiar 
sphere, as well as men, in which custom and the rules of 
society have placed them ; but these do not interfere with 
their religious privileges. These have no power, and ought 
to have none, to control the conscience, or restrain devo- 
tion. I would not have women officiate publicly in church- 
es, because it would be violating custom and introducing 
confusion, and not because it would be contrary to any laws 
of nature or religion. In this respect the sexes are on an 
equality. Whatever is a natural or religious right to one, 
is so to the other. It is hard indeed, if women cannot be 
allowed the privilege of exercising this right, and assem- 
bling together when they choose in a becoming, orderly, and 
peaceable manner, to offer up their devotions, and encour- 
age one another in their christian course, by a rational inter- 
change of pious sentiments, and sincere endeavors to serve 
God. Why should they be deprived of the advantages and 
delights of social worship ? No one will deny, that they 
are capable of feeling and estimating these advantages, and 
even in a much higher degree, than the other sex. 

You censure them for not using " the authorized prayers 
of the church" on such occasions. But is this reasonable ? 
How many are there who think it their duty not to use 
forms of prayer ? How many, to whose spiritual condition 
none of the church prayers are applicable ? Would you 
have such persons violate what they consider their duty, 
because the " spirit of the church institutions frowns upon 
them" and forego the propriety, as well as comfort, of ad- 
dressing their Maker in the genuine language of the heart? 
And is not a woman as capable of expressing this language, 
as a man ? 

In making these remarks, I am very far from wishing to 
7 



70 RITUAL OF THE CHURCH. 

defend any irregularities or improprieties in the modes of 
religious worship. I only wish to state, that " where the 
spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty j" that it is the sin- 
cere, and not the formal worshipper, with whom God is 
pleased ; and that no individual of either sex can justly be 
restrained from a free and rational exercise of every privi- 
lege, which is derived from the laws of nature and of relig- 
ion, 

I hope you will pardon me for introducing here a short 
extract from a sermon of one of the most eloquent preach- 
ers, enlightened men, and pious christians, whom this or 
any other age has known- The subject of the discourse is, 
u The influence of the gospel on the character and condi- 
tion of the female sex." The passage, which I am about 
to select, has reference to the tendency of the female mind 
to religious sensibility, and its proneness to receive religious 
impressions. After speaking of the tenderness with which 
our Saviour always treated women, and of their devoted- 
ness to him, even after he had been forsaken by his dis- 
ciples and all his friends — of their following him to the 
cross and watching at his sepulchre — the preacher address- 
es the female part of his audience in the following words. 

u It is infinitely honorable to your character, that you 
ever feel a secret sympathy with a religion, which unlocks 
all the sources of benevolent affection, which smiles on ev- 
ery exercise of compassion, and every act of kindness. We 
may say too, perhaps, that your hearts, not hardened by the 
possession of power, the pains of avarice, or the emulations 
of public life, are more alive to the accents of pardon by 
Jesus Christ, more awake to the glories of the invisible 
world. The gospel came to throw a charm over domestic 
life ; and, in retirement, the first objects which it found, 
were mothers and their children It came to bind up the 
broken hearted ; and for that office woman was always best 



RITUAL OF THE CHURCH. 71 

prepared. It came to heal the sick ; and woman was al- 
ready waiting at their couches. It came to open the gates 
of life on the languid eye of the dying penitent, and woman 
was every where to be seen, softly tending at the pillow, 
and closing the eyes of the departing. 

u With this superior susceptibility of religious impres- 
sion, and aptitude to the practical duties of the gospel, I 
know, there are evils associated, against which it is some- 
times difficult to guard. Sensibility degenerates into weak- 
ness ; and religious awe into superstition, in your sex, of- 
tener, perhaps, than in ours ; yet, with all these dangers 
and inconveniences, I believe, that if Christianity should be 
compelled to flee from the mansions of the great, the acad- 
emies of the philosophers, the halls of the legislators, or 
the throng of busy men, we should find her last and purest 
retreat with woman at the fireside ; her last altar would be 
the female heart ; her last audience would be the children 
gathered round the knees of a mother ; her last sacrifice, 
the . secret prayer escaping in silence from her lips, and 
heard, perhaps, only at the throne of God."* 

I will conclude this letter with one or two observations 
on the Festivals and Fasts of the episcopal church. In 
Nelson's book on this subject, it is said, " these are of ec- 
clesiastical institution, and consonant to the practice of the 
primitive church."! In the same book are enumerated, be- 
sides the sabbath, forty-seven days of public worship, to 
which are attached the names of saints, angels, and other 
titles of no very obvious import. 

Let me ask what authority there is in the Bible for com- 
memorating saints and angels, and especially for incorpora- 
ting forms of such a commemoration into a church service, 

* Buckminster's Sermons, first edition, p. 388. 
t Festivals and Fasts, p. 63. 



72 RITUAL OF THE CHURCH. 

and connecting them with the worship of God ? You can 
find neither precept nor example in the word of God, in 
which the vestige of such a practice appears. What is 
meant by its being an u ecclesiastical institution ?" It orig- 
inated in the strong inclination of the Gentile converts to 
adapt the forms of christian worship to the rites and cere- 
monies, to which they had been accustomed when heathens. 
Saints and martyrs were substituted for heathen gods. This 
has been fully shown by Causobon, Whiston, and especially 
Mr. Mede, in his " Apostacy of the Latter Times." He 
cites a striking passage from Theodoret. " Our Lord God 
hath brought his dead (martyrs) into the room and place of 
your gods, whom he hath sent off, and given their honor to 
his martyrs. For instead of the feasts of Jupiter and Bac- 
chus, are now celebrated the festivals of Peter and Paul, 
and Thomas, and Sergius, and other holy martyrs."* 

Since this is the origin of these festivals, it would seem 
the duty of the church rather to abolish, than perpetuate 
them. There is no evidence in history of any saints' days 
being observed, till after the second century ; and yet we 
are told " this institution is consonant to the practice of the 
primitive church." Such broad assertions without proof will 
satisfy those and those only, who think credulity a christian 
virtue ; free inquiry a crime ; and submission to the author- 
ity of the church, a compliance with a divine command. | 

I have thus pointed out some of the particulars in the 

* See Peirce's Vindication, Part Third, c. xi. 

\ The celebration of saints' days is taken entirely from the church 
of Rome. In Speaking of Burnet's account of the views of the 
church of England on this subject, Bossuet observes, " he every- 
where, and in all things, justifies us ; and they, who object to us 
that we follow the commandments of men, may bring the same ob- 
jection against the English church. This church will vindicate 
us." Hist, des Var. liv. vii. § 91. 



RITUAL OF THE CHURCH- 73 

forms of the episcopal church, which distinguish it from 
most other Protestant churches, and some of which I do 
not find warranted in scripture. It would have been grati- 
fying to see these explained and vindicated in your discourse. 
It will be a difficult thing for any of your readers to tell 
why they are " Protestant Episcopal Churchmen, 51 till they 
can see removed the formidable objections, which rest 
against these parts of the church service, and be convinced 
from clear evidence, that the whole is built on the simple 
truths of the gospel. 



LETTER III. 



ON THE AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH IN CON- 
TROVERSIES OF FAITH. 



Reverend and dear sir, 

I propose next to consider that part of the twentieth ar- 
ticle, which asserts, that " the church hath authority in con- 
troversies of faith.'''' This you pass over entirely ; yet, if I 
am not mistaken, there is no one thing in which the episco- 
pal church differs more essentially from Protestant churches 
in general. Few churches, I believe, assume, as a funda- 
mental doctrine, the right and authority of deciding in mat- 
ters of faith. 

Some of your readers, I am sure, would have thanked 
you, if you had told them, whence the church derives this 
authority. To the present episcopal church it must have 
been communicated by the " archbishops and bishops of 
both provinces, and the whole clergy," assembled in con- 
vocation in the reign of king Edward the Sixth. But from 
whom did they receive this extraordinary power ? From 
the king and parliament on the one hand, and the church of 
Rome on the other. What authority had the king and par- 
liament over the faith, and conscience, and spiritual con- 
cerns of men ? None at all What authority had the 
church of Rome ? One of the articles framed by this same 
" convocation " declares, " the church of Rome hath erred, 
not only in her living and manner of ceremonies, but also 



AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH. 75 

in matters of faith." You would not be willing to allow, 
that any authority to decide in controversies of faith could 
be derived from a church, which had already departed from 
the faith, and which you say, in your discourse, had adopt- 
ed " ceremonies and doctrines neither taught in scripture, 
nor consistent with its purity." Although you have at- 
tempted to prove, that the true order of the ministry de- 
scended through this church, which has so far receded from 
the scriptures, you will scarcely speak with equal confi- 
dence concerning rules of faith. The episcopal church has 
derived no authority, then, either from kings, parliaments, 
or any civil institutions, or from any other church. 

Let us go to the scriptures. Where has our Saviour, or 
his apostles, given authority to any man, or any number of 
men, to prescribe articles of belief, and judge men for their 
opinions ? Why should it have been a command of our 
Lord to " search the scriptures," to" hear and understand," 
if others are to search and understand for us ? If he in- 
tended the task of examining, thinking, deciding, and judg- 
ing, should be confined to a few favored persons, who 
should fix on themselves the name of the church, why has 
he given no intimations of such an intention ? This would 
have secured much peace and comfort to many anxious in- 
quirers, who have thought it their duty to search with a de- 
vout earnestness for the true meaning of the scriptures, and 
to adopt from knowledge and conviction the principles of 
their faith. 

All doubts and anxieties on this subject might thus be 
easily removed ; for as soon as it were believed, that the 
church has authority to fix the true meaning of scripture, 
nothing would remain but to " believe as the church be- 
lieves." Instead of searching the scriptures, it would only 
be necessary to search the articles and creeds. The Bible 
might be laid aside ; for why should it be read, if all its 
important truths can be found in a much smaller compass ? 



76 AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH. 

But our Saviour has given no authority to any man, or to 
any church, to decide on the meaning of scripture, and im- 
pose their decisions on the conscience and understanding of 
others. Wherever such an authority is set up, it is assu- 
med ; and wherever it attempts to enforce its decrees, or 
influence, either directly or indirectly, the opinions of others, 
it makes an unwarrantable encroachment on the freedom of 
christians. For what reason did our Saviour, with great 
earnestness, ask the question, " why even of yourselves 
judge ye not what is right, "if we are to resign the exercise ot 
our judgment, and rely on the authority of the church ? 

I know it has been maintained by many episcopalians, 
who are unwilling to admit the construction, which this 
article naturally bears, that it is not to be understood as it 
is written. They would not have it mean any thing, ex- 
cept when compared with another part of the same article, 
which says, " it is not lawful for the church to ordain any 
thing, that it is contrary to God's word written." 

From this it is argued, that, although the church has au- 
thority in controversies of faith, yet it cannot impose any 
thing, which is not contained in the scriptures. But it is 
important to inquire, who is to be the judge in this case ? 
The church has been careful to settle this point. What is 
it to " have authority in controversies of faith," but to have 
authority to determine what is the true faith ? The amount 
of the whole, then, is this ; — the church is not to impose 
any articles of faith, which are contrary to the word of 
God ; but the church is to determine what is, and what is 
not, contrary to the word of God. On any occasion of con- 
troversy, there can be only two parties, of which the church 
is one. They both appeal to the scriptures, and the church 
assumes the authority of deciding what the scriptures mean; 
and thus becomes a judge in its own cause. 



AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH. 77 

If this were not obvious from the nature of the thing, it 
is abundantly proved by direct evidence contained in the 
articles and canons of the church. In the eighth article the 
church affirms, that " the Nicene creed, and that which is 
commonly called the Apostles 1 creed, ought thoroughly to 
be received and believed ; for they may be proved by most 
certain warrants of holy scripture." Now there are some 
things in one of these creeds especially, which, so far from 
being proved by " certain warrants of scripture, " many 
christians think are directly contrary to scripture, and sub- 
versive of its simplest and purest doctrines. Yet the church 
has passed its judgment, and by this all its members must 
abide. 

If you will examine the decisions of the church in all 
controversies of faith, both with the Catholics and Puritans, 
I believe you will find it has always enforced the doctrines 
of its articles and creeds, notwithstanding the saving clause 
in the twentieth article, that " it is not lawful to ordain any 
thing contrary to God's word written." 

The spirit of this doctrine, respecting authority in mat- 
ters of faith, is clearly illustrated in the canons of the En- 
glish church. The candidate for ordination, among other 
things, is required to subscribe to the following words, 
namely, u that the Book of Common Prayer, and of order- 
ing of bishops, priests, and deacons, containeth in it nothing 
contrary to the word of God ; and that he acknowledgeth 
all and every the articles therein contained, to be agreeable 
to the word of God" After this acknowledgment, it is 
hardly necessary to inquire what will be his decisions re- 
specting the import of the word of God in any controversies 
of faith. 

The American form differs a little from this in words, 
but not in substance. By the tenth article of the Ecclesias- 
tical Constitution, the candidate makes the following engage- 



78 AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH. 

ment ; " I do solemnly engage to conform to the doctrines and 
tvorship of the Protestant Episcopal Church in these United 
States." 

From these terms of subscription, it appears, that minis- 
ters at the time of ordination, not only profess a present 
belief in the doctrines of the church, but " solemnly engage 
to conform" to these doctrines. In case of any controversy 
on these subjects, therefore, they must either violate their 
solemn engagement, or decide in favor of the standing doc- 
trines of the church, whatever may be the actual sense of 
scripture. It is in effect making the articles the criterion, 
by which the scriptures are to be explained. 

If a doubt can longer remain, as to what is meant by the 
church, when it professes to have authority in controversies 
of faith, it will be removed by recurring to those canons of 
the English church, which relate to excommunication. 
According to the fifth canon, " Whosoever shall hereafter 
affirm, that any of the nine and thirty articles agreed upon, 
for avoiding diversities of opinions, and for the establishing of 
consent, touching true religion, are in any sort superstitious 
or erroneous, or such as he may not with a good conscience 
subscribe unto ; let him be excommunicated ipso facto." 

I do not say that the American church is so severe in its 
denunciations of those, who, after they have joined the 
church, may be so unfortunate as to change their opinions 
in regard to some of the articles ; yet so far as relates to 
the point in question there is no difference. This is evident 
from the eighth article, and the form of subscription above 
quoted ; and also from what is stated in another place, 
namely, that in the judgment of the church, u there be not 
any thing in the Liturgy contrary to the word of God, or 
to sound doctrine, or which a godly man may not with a 
good conscience subscribe unto." It is not necessary to seek 



AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH. 79 

any further to know, in what sense the church considers it- 
self to have authority in controversies of faith.* 

If we must have some creed, or fixed formulary of belief, 
distinct from the plain letter of scripture, before we can 
have a regular church, it is worth while to inquire from 

* The following extracts from Daubney's Guide to the Church, 
will serve further to illustrate this subject. Daubney's work is 
written with much good temper and apparent candor, and I be- 
lieve is of high authority in the church. It is among those books, 
which were recommended by the "house of bishops in the conven- 
tion of 1804," to students in theology. 

The author says, "Ever since the era of the reformation, the 
church of England has been considered to he the firmest bulwark 
of Protestantism. So far as the dissenter agrees with her in pro* 
testing against the errors of the Romish church, so far he may be 
said to be at unity with her; but when that right, which justifies 
the dissension in common with the church of England, in separating 
from a corrupt branch of the christian church, is extended to jus- 
tify his separation from a branch of the church confessedly not irt 
the same state of corruption, and of whose members, no unlawful 
terms of communion are required ; and to authorize his setting up 
a church of his own, independent of episcopal government, — the 
dissenter quits the ground of Protestantism, and places himself 
upon that of schism; and in such case he becomes a schismatic, 
grafted upon a Protestant." p. 134. 

We see from this account, in what estimation the Protestant 
Episcopal Church holds itself, and what judgment it passes on 
those who dissent. What are those unfortunate christans to do, 
who find manj? corruptions even in this " branch of the church," 
and many "unlawful terms of communion," with which they cannot 
conscientiously comply ? Are they to put conscience, the sense of 
duty, and religious principle, out of the question ? Or shall they 
retain these, and run the fearful hazard of being branded by the 
church with the charitable name of schismatics. 

But this advocate for the church has not the most profound re- 
spect for the freedom of conscience, or the light of private judg- 
ment. He tells us, that " the idea, which has for some time pre- 
vailed, that christian liberty gives every man a rights to icorship 



80 AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH. 

what source is it to be obtained. If we are to rely or au- 
thority, how are we to determine what shall be that author- 
ity ? Shall it be some particular person in whose intelli- 
gence, honesty, and judgment we place unlimited confidence? 
But this person depended on a third, and this third on a 
fourth. Where shall we stop ? Shall we go back to ecclesi- 
astical assemblies, synods, and councils ? But these differed 
one from the other. One revoked, altered, or annulled 
what another had decreed. What articles of faith, among 
the multitude of contradictory ones, which have been sent 
out under the authority of great names, shall we adopt.* 
Shall we take a creed of the third, tenth, or eighteenth 
century ? 

Until this point shall be settled by some fair course of 
reasoning, had we not best be contented to receive our faith 
from the Bible ? Why should we have a greater fondness 
for wandering away after the doctrines and speculations of 
men, than for consulting and confiding in the words of Je- 
sus Christ and his apostles ? What more do we want ? Can 
we go to a purer source? If the systems of faith, which men 

God in his own way, appears to have been admitted without suf- 
ficient ex ami nation. " p. 116. And again; we do not scruple to 
affirm, that every man is not qualified to form a judgment for him- 
self in religious matters." p. 138. 

From these extracts it is perceived, that the ground, which this 
writer takes, is in perfect accordance with the views given above 
of the doctrine of the church, in regrad to its authority in matters 
of faith. If he is to be considered a faithful interpreter, all men 
who separate are accounted schismatics in the estimation of the 
church; they are incapable of judging for themselves; and have 
no right to worship God " in their own way," whatever maybe the 
dictates of their understanding, or conscience. 

* In the second part of King's Constitutions of the Primitive 
Church, may be seen no less than twelve different creeds, which 
were in use before the end of the third century. 



AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH. 81 

have drawn up, contain any thing more or less than the 
scriptures, they will deceive and mislead us ; if they contain 
precisely what the Scriptures contain, we do not need them. 

On this subject, Chillingworth has some excellent re- 
marks in his controversy with the Catholics. " The 
Bible, the Bible only, is the religion of Protestants. I see 
plainly and with my own eyes, that there are popes against 
popes, councils against councils, some Fathers against oth- 
ers, the same Fathers against themselves, a consent of Fath- 
ers of one age against a consent of Fathers of another age, 
the church of one age against the church of another age. In 
a word, there is no sufficient certainty, but only of scripture, 
for any considering man to build upon."* Such were 
the sentiments of one of the ablest men of the age 
in which he lived, who, although he did not believe in the 
divine right of episcopacy, was a powerful defender of the 
Protestant cause, and a firm supporter of the English 
church. 

Why we should choose to go to the ancient Fathers for 
our religious opinions ; why we should adopt the decrees 
of factious councils, or the dogmas of the dark ages, while 
we have the treasures of divine truth in our possession, are 
questions not easy to be answered. 

The episcopal church in the United States thought it 
necessary to have only two creeds, the Apostles' and the 
Nicene. Why the convention left out the Athanasian creed 
we are not told. In regard to doctrine it differs in nothing 
from the Nicene. It has, also, generally been thought to 
contain a more explicit statement of the doctrine of the 
trinity, as held by the church, than is any where else to 
be found. The three uncharitable, or as they have been 
called, "damnatory" clauses, might have been omitted, with- 

* Chillingworth's Religion of Protestants, &c. chap. vi. § 56. 

8 



82 AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH. 

out injuring it as a summary of faith. And if the doctrines 
set forth in these two last mentioned creeds, be actually 
the vital truths of scripture, the more clearly they are stated 
and the more strongly they are enforced, the better.* 

* As the Athanasian creed is a curiosity not often to be met 
with, since it has been left out of the Book of Common Prayer, 1 
doubt not that some persons,into whose hands these letters may fall, 
will be gratified to see it at full length. I insert it the more readily, 
because it has been considered a masterly exposition of the views 
of the church, in regard to one of its most important doctrines. 
Archbishop Seeker observes, in speaking of this creed, (Works, 
vol. iii. p. 434) " the doctrines are undeniably the same with those 
that are contained in the articles of the church, only here they are 
someiohat more distinctly set forth to prevent equivocation." 

ATHANASIAN CREED. 

Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he 
hold the Catholic faith. 

Which faith, except every one do keep whole and undefiled, 
without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. 

And the Catholic faith is this, That we worship one God in tri- 
nity, and trinity in unity. 

Neither confounding the persons nor dividing the substance. 

For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and 
another of the Holy Ghost. 

But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy 
Ghost, is all one ; the glory equal, the majesty co-eternal. 

Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy 
Ghost. 

The Father uncreate, the Son uncreate, and the Holy Ghost 
uncreate. 

The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and 
the Holy Ghost incomprehensible. 

The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Ghost eter- 
nal ; 

And yet they are not three eternals, but one eternal. 



AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH. 83 

If we may judge from the journals of the different Ameri- 
can conventions, no little difficulty was experienced in set- 
tling this affair of the creeds, as well as in altering some 
other parts of the Book of Common Prayer. It was laid 
down as a fundamental principle, that the apostolic succes- 
sion could be kept up only through the English bishops ; 
and, therefore, whatever alterations might be made in the 
church service, they must be such as would be sanctioned 

As also there are not three incomprehensibles,nor three uncreated; 
but one uncreated, and one incomprehensible. 

So likewise the Father is Almighty, the Son Almighty, and the 
Holy Ghost Almighty; 

And yet they are not three Almighties, but one Almighty. 

So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is 
God ; 

And yet they are not three Gods, but one God. 

So likewise, the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy 
Ghost Lord ; 

And yet not three Lords, but one Lord. 

For like as we are compelled by the christian verity, to acknow- 
ledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord ; 

So we are forbidden by the Catholic religion to say, there be 
three Gods, or three Lords. 

The Father is made of none, neither created, nor begotten. 

The Son is of the Father alone, not made, nor created, but be- 
gotten. 

The Holy Ghost is of the Father and of the Son; neither made, 
nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding. 

So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three 
Sons ; one Holy Ghost, not three Holy Ghosts. 

And in this trinity none is afore or after other, none is greater 
or less than another ; 

But the whole three Persons are co-eternal together, and co- 
equal. 

ji So that in all things, as is aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity, and 
the Trinity in Unity is to be worshipped. 

He therefore that will be saved, must thus think of the Trinity. 

Furthermore, it is necessary to everlasting salvation, that he 
also believe rightly the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. 



84 AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH. 

in England. In this way, the members of the conventions 
were trammelled and constrained, and actually deterred from 
making such alterations as their good sense induced them 
to think necessary. 

The first convention of the Protestant Episcopal Church 
was held at Philadelphia in September, 1785. It consisted 
of clerical and lay delegates from the states of New York, 
New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia 
and South Carolina. By this convention, the thirty-nine 



For the right Faith is, that we believe and confess, That our 
Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and man ; 

God of the substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds ; 
and Man of the substance of his mother, born in the world ; 

Perfect God, and perfect man, of a reasonable soul, and human 
flesh subsisting ; 

Equal to the Father, as touching his Godhead ; and inferior to 
the Father, as touching his manhood. 

Who although he be God and man, yet he is not two, but one 
Christ; 

One ; not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by taking 
of the manhood into God; 

One altogether ; not by confusion of substance, but by unity of 
person. 

For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man, so God and man 
is one Christ; 

Who suffered for our salvation, descended into hell, rose again 
the third day from the dead ; 

He ascended into heaven, he sitteth on the right hand of the 
Father, God Almighty ; from whence he shall eome to judge the 
quick and the dead. 

At whose corning all men shall rise again with their bodies, and 
shall give account for their own works. 

And they that have done good, shall go into life everlasting 
and they that have done evil, into everlasting fire. 

This is the Catholic faith, which except a man believe faith 
ullv he cannot be saved. 



AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH. 85 

articles were reduced to twenty ; the Athanasian and Nicene 
creeds were rejected ; the clause in the apostles' creed, " he 
descended into hell," was omitted ; and various other omis- 
sions and changes were made in different parts of the Litur- 
gy. A committe was appointed to publish the Prayer Book 
with these alterations.* 

The convention also agreed to an Ecclesiastical Constitu- 
tion for the Government of the church. The following was 
the eighth article. " Every clergyman, whether bishop, or 
presbyter, or deacon, shall be amenable to the authority of 
the convention in the state to which he belongs, so far as 
relates to suspension or removal from office ; and the con- 
vention in each state shall institute rules for their conduct, 
and an equitable mode of trial." It was also resolved by 
the convention " to address the archbishops and bishops of 
the church of England, requesting them to confer the epis- 
copal character on such persons as shall be chosen and re- 

* This book was printed, and has usually been called the " Pray- 
er Book of 1785." As it was left discretional with the churches to 
use it or not, it seems not to have been generally adopted. The 
English Prayer Book was for the most part used, with such altera- 
tions only, in the public forms, as the revolution had rendered ne- 
cessary. No uniformity existed till the year 1790, when the pres- 
ent Book of Common Prayer was received into all the churches, 
by order of the convention. 

The twenty articles of the book of 1785 differ very little from the 
thirty-nine, in points of doctrine and faith. The doctrine of the 
trinity is expressed in somewhat such language, as it is in the Ni- 
cene creed ; two of the old articles are sometimes incorporated 
into one; and some of the references to the ancient heresies are 
omitted. 

In regard to the judgment of the church in controversies of faith 
they are not so positive as the old articles. The following is from 
the thirteenth article. " General councils and charches are liable 
to err, and have erred, both in matters of faith and doctrine, as 
well as in their ceremonies." 

s* 



86 AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH. 

commended to them for that purpose, from the conventions 
of their church in their respective states." 

At a second convention held at Philadelphia, in June of 
the next year, a letter from the archbishop and bishops of 
the church of England was read. In this letter they ap- 
prove of the application made to them to confer the episco- 
pal character, but express some hesitation on account of the 
changes, which had been made in the Liturgy. " While 
we are anxious," say they, " to give every proof, not only 
of our brotherly affections, but of our facility in forwarding 
your wishes, we cannot but be extremely cautious, lest 
we should be the instruments of establishing: an ecclesi- 
astical system, which will be called a branch of the 
church of England, but afterwards may appear to have de- 
parted from it essentially, either in doctrine or discipline." 

By this convention it was " resolved unanimously, that 
it be recommended to this church in the states here repre- 
sented, not to receive to the pastoral charge within their 
respective limits, clergymen professing canonical subjection 
to any bishop, in any state or country, other than those bish- 
ops who may be duly settled in the states represented in 
in this convention." An addition was also made to the 
eighth article of the constitution, above quoted, relative to 
the trial of bishops, presbyters, and deacons. It was found, 
that in its original construction, too much authority was 
given to the conventions. The episcopal dignity was not 
sufficiently respected. To remove this difficulty, the fol- 
lowing clause was added, " And at every trial of a bishop, 
there shall be one or more of the episcopal order present ; 
and none but a bishop shall pronounce sentence of deposi- 
tion or degradation from the ministry on any clergyman, 
whether bishop, presbyter, or deacon."* It was not enough, 

* The article still remains in this form, and makes the sixth ar- 
ticle of the constitution of the church. 

See Constitution, Canons, &c. Philadelphia, 1813, p. 45. 



AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH. 87 

that the conventions should " institute rules for an equitable 
mode of trial ;" the application of these rules must be sanc- 
tioned by the voice of a bishop. 

The convention was dissolved, after having agreed on an 
answer to the archbishops and bishops of the English church, 
in which they repeat their request to receive from them the 
episcopal character, and, to " remove the present hesitation, 
send the proposed Ecclesiastical Constitution, and Book of 
Common Prayer." 

A third convention was held at Wilmington in Delaware, 
October, 1786. The principal object of this convention 
was to take into consideration letters, which had lately been 
received from the archbishops of England, in reply to the 
answer above mentioned. In one of these letters the arch- 
bishops state, u that it was impossible not to observe with 
concern, that if the essential doctrines of our common faith 
were retained, less respect however was paid to our Litur- 
gy than its own excellence, and your declared attachment 
to it, had led us to expect ; not to mention a variety of ver- 
bal alterations, of the necessity or propriety of which we 
are by no means satisfied ; we saw with grief, that two of 
the confessions of our christian faith, respectable for their 
antiquity, have been entirely laid aside ; and that even in that 
which is called the Apostles' creed, an article is omitted, 
which was thought necessary to be inserted, with a view 
to a particular heresy, in a very early age of the church, 
and has ever since had the sanction of universal reception." 

After expressing a wish to continue in spiritual commu- 
nion with the American church, and a u sincere desire to 
complete the orders of their ministry," they add, "we 
therefore most earnestly exhort you, that you restore to its 
integrity the Apostles' creed, in which you have omit- 
ted an article merely, as it seems, from misapprehension 
of the sense in which it is understood by our church ; 



88 AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH. 

nor can we help adding, that we hope you will think it 
but a decent proof of the attachment you profess to the 
services of our Liturgy, to give to the other two creeds a 
place in your Book of Common Prayer, even though the 
the use of them should be left discretional." 

The archbishops also complain of the eighth article of 
the Ecclesiastical Constitution, " and strongly represent, 
that it appears to them to be a degradation of the clerical, 
and still more of the episcopal character ;" and this, not- 
withstanding all trials were to be conducted by the rules of 
equity. But happily this article had already been altered, 
before their letter arrived. 

In a letter from the archbishop of Canterbury, received 
at the same time, it is said, a but whether we can conse- 
crate any (bishop) or not, must yet depend on the answers 
we may receive to what we have written." 

These letters produced the effect, which the English bish- 
ops desired. The convention reconsidered their former do- 
ings. They admitted unanimously the Nicene creed ; they 
received the clause into the Apostles' creed, which they 
had for the best of reasons rejected ; and even there were 
some advocates for the restoration of the Athanasian creed, 
with all its uncharitable denunciations.* 

I have been thus particular in this historical sketch of the 
proceedings of the first conventions, that it may be seen by 
what motives they were influenced in making the altera- 
tions, which they finally adopted. Their first decisions 
were no doubt such as their understanding, their unbiassed 
reflections, and their knowledge of the scriptures prompted 
them to make. What could induce them to abandon opin- 

* See " Proceedings of the general conventions of the Protestant 
Episcopal Church in the United States of America;" and Lind- 
sey's Vindicise Priestleianae, § 2, p. 20, et seqq. 



AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH. 89 

ions, which they had deliberately formed on a subject of 
the most important and solemn nature ? The only reason, 
which can be discovered, was the good will and pleasure of 
the archbishops of the English church. The members of 
the conventions left every thing else behind, in pursuit of 
the phantom of episcopacy. Instead of appealing to the 
gospel of Christ, and acting solely upon the principles of 
reason and scripture, they squared their proceedings by a 
letter from the archbishop of Canterbury. In their view, 
episcopacy seems to have been the gieat bulwark of relig- 
ion, without which, the whole fabric must fall. To secure 
this bulwark, no sacrifices were to be thought too great. 

As to the Apostles' creed, so called, it has very little in 
it objectionable, except the name, and the clause mentioned 
above. Calling it by the name of the apostles may lead 
some into the mistaken notion, that it was made by them. 
This notion was advanced and defended by some of the later 
Fathers, who even went so far as to say, that each apostle 
contributed a part. Although the substance of this creed, 
expressed in different forms, is confessedly very ancient, yet 
nothing was said of its apostolical origin, till nearly four 
hundred years after the time of the apostles, when it was 
first mentioned by Ambrose. It might, therefore, with 
much more propriety, be called the creed of the Fathers, 
than of the apostles. Bishop Burnet, bishop Pearson, and 
others agree, that the clause of Christ's descent into hell, 
was not added till the fifth century.* 

As the scriptures are a sufficient rule of faith, and all 
creeds are formed by human invention, and enforced by hu- 
man authority, have we not good reason to suspect their 
utility? Any other formulary of belief, than such as may- 
be found in the word of God must have on the clergy an ex- 

* Pearson on the Creed, vol. i. p. 341. ii. p. 287. 



90 AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH. 

tremely injurious, and sometimes an immoral tendency. At 
the best, it must keep up an exclusive spirit, and a bigoted 
attachment to the faith and ordinances of the particular 
church to which they happen to belong. 

Archdeacon Paley says of creeds, " they check inquiry ; 
they violate liberty ; they ensnare the consciences of the 
clergy by holding out temptations to prevarication." Noth- 
ing can be more obvious, than these consequences. A cler- 
gyman, who has been ordained only on condition of express- 
ing a belief, that the articles of his church are agreeable to 
the word of God, and of " solemnly engaging to conform to 
the doctrines " contained in these articles, cannot afterwards 
change his mind, and retain his situation, without being 
guilty of prevarication, dishonesty, or fraud. 

The only way for him to keep a quiet conscience, is to 
shut up his Bible, and fix his eyes on the articles of the 
church. If he be ignorant, he must remain ignorant ; if 
in the dark, he must take care to avoid the light. If he 
read the Bible, it must never be with a view to inquire 
for truth, but only to strengthen his former opinions. 

The amiable and excellent Dr. Lindsey retained his place 
for some time in the church, after he was convinced, that 
the doctrine of the trinity was unscriptural. He still ad- 
hered to the articles, and satisfied his conscience by explain- 
ing the trinity according to the Sabellian theory, or the mo- 
dal scheme of Dr. Wallis. Upon more serious reflection, 
however, he rejected this mode of explanation as a subter- 
fuge, to which he could not persuade himself that he ought 
to resort, and retired from the church. It is well known, 
that many clergymen in the English church, from the time 
of Dr. Wallis to the present day, have entertained similar 
sentiments in regard to the trinity, and satisfied themselves 
with the same kind of explanations. By concealment, pre- 
varication, and a forced construction of the articles, they 



AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH. 91 

have contrived to keep up a show of compliance with the 
creeds and articles of the church. 

These consequences are not so much chargeable on indi- 
viduals, as on the church, which imposes such restrictions 
on its ministers. Why should these temptations be thrown 
in their way ? If you deprive men of their liberty, you 
cannot suppose they will be very choice in the means they 
use to throw off their shackles, and escape from thraldom ; 
and of all the various kinds of servitude, the slavery of 
conscience and of opinion is the most degrading, and to a 
mind which has a single spark of its native energy left, the 
most difficult to be endured. 

Many persons of the highest eminence for talents, attain- 
ments, and excellence, both among the clergy and laity, 
who have been much attached to the forms of the Ens-lish 

o 

church, but who could not reconcile themselves to its 
creeds, and especially to the doctrine of the trinity, have 
thought it their duty to secede, and unite themselves to such 
societies, as allow a freedom of opinion, and require no oth- 
er form of faith, than that which is contained in the sacred 
writings. Memorable examples are presented in Mr. Em- 
lyn, Dr. Lindsey, Dr. Jebb, the late duke of Grafton, sir 
George Savile, and others. 

Some others, not less conscientious or enlightened, al- 
though of decided Unitarian principles, have considered it 
their duty, for various reasons, to remain in the church. 
Newton and Locke, although Unitarians, adhered to the es- 
tablished worship. Dr. Samuel Clarke, one of the most 
distinguished scholars and divines, whom the church has 
ever possessed, did not forsake the established forms, al- 
though he publicly avowed himself to be a Unitarian, and 
proposed such alterations in the Liturgy, as would enable 
christians of all denominations to join conscientiously in the 



92 AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH. 

church service.* x\rchdeacon Blackburn, Shipley, bishop 
of St. Aspah, and Law, bishop of Carlisle^ who are known 
not to have been of the orthodox faith in regard to the trin- 
ity, always remained in the established church, j" 

There was nothing unjustifiable, perhaps, in the course 
which these men pursued, when their sentiments were 
publicly known. Their sense of duty, their wish to be 
extensively useful, their early attachments, and desire for 
peace in the church, were probably such motives as ena- 
bled them to forego the additional comfort and satisfaction, 
which they might derive from a more congenial mode of wor- 
ship, and to use their best diligence in employing the means 
of doing good, which providence had put in their power. 
But all the examples here introduced afford a practical com- 
ment on the inexpediency, and injurious tendency, of human 
forms of belief, to which humble, pious, and enlightened 
christians of every denomination cannot subscribe. 

The evils of creeds are not felt with less force by the 
people, than the clergy. The injury is greater, as it applies 
to them, because more extensive. If the people can be per- 
suaded, that all the important doctrines of religion are com- 
prised in the formularies of the church, and that these 
formularies have been drawn up, and are still taught and 
explained by men, who have descended in a regular succes- 
sion from the apostles, they will not only think it unneces- 
sary, but even dangerous to inquire further. To look into 
the opinions of other christians, to examine their arguments, 

* When Dr. Clarke took the degree of doctor in divinity at 
Cambridge, he delivered and defended a thesis on the following 
proposition. " No article of the christian faith, delivered in the sa- 
cred scriptures, is contrary to right reason." Nullum Fidei Chris- 
tianas Dotrma in S. Scripturis traditum est recta? rationi dissenta- 
neum. 

t See Belsham's Letters to the bishop of London, second edi- 
tion, p. 23. 



AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH 93 

and study the scriptures to know on what grounds they 
build their opinions, would be an implied acknowledge- 
ment, that the church may not have the whole truth on its 
side. The consequence must be, that the Bible will be little 
read. It will become a book of secondary importance. I be- 
lieve, indeed, the instances are not rare, in which the Prayer 
Book is quoted by zealous churchmen, in common conversa- 
tion, on points of controversy, with scarcely less reverence, 
than the Bible itself. 

The times have gone by, when an archbishop of Canter- 
bury said, " a christian must not inquire about the truth of 
any thing, which the church believes, but is simply to be- 
lieve whatever the Romish church professeth to believe," 
yet it is the same thing in reality, if not in words, for a 
bishop or minister of the present day to tell his people, that 
the articles of the church have been established by men, pos- 
sessing apostolical authority, and contain every thing essen- 
tial to salvation. When he advises his people not to become 
acquainted with the sentiments of christians of other denomi- 
nations, and represents to them the danger of reading their 
books ; when he takes pains to confine their religious 
knoweledge to the Book of Common Prayer, and to such 
interpretations of the scripture only, as are consistent with 
this book ; when he tells them, that no persons can be 
considered as christian ministers, who have not been or- 
dained according to the canons of the church, and that the 
ordinances of our holy religion, performed by such persons, 
are unscriptural and invalid, — when he assumes the right 
gravely to impress these things on the minds of the people, 
what else does he, but urge the implicit authority of the 
church, and virtually take away from every one belonging 
to it the right of private judgment ? 

I would not be understood to intimate, that such is the 
practice of all bishops and ministers ; but I think it will not 
9 



94 AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH- 

be denied, that it is the practice of some. Perhaps they 
are not to be censured on this account. It is persumed that 
they act conscientiously ; and what more can be required of 
a man, than to do what he sincerely believes to be his duty? 
He may think such means necessary to preserve the dignity 
and purity of the church. But does it not argue some de- 
fect in the principles of a church, which requires, or even 
allows its ministers to resort to such means of supporting its 
cause ? 

The people are the sufferers. They are made to rest sat- 
isfied with slender religious attainments, and to contract 
unworthy prejudices against their fellow christians of other 
denominations. It is also to be feared, that they too often 
lose much of the spirit of religion, in their zeal for the pe- 
culiar tenets of the church ; since they are taught, by what 
they are made to believe the highest authority, to receive 
these tenets as the necessary truths of scripture. Ministers 
of the gospel should not be accessary to such consequences 
as these ; and it is much to be lamented, that the principles 
of any church should have a tendency to diminish the value 
of religious knowledge in the estimation of its members, to 
weaken the ties of brotherly kindness, or to narrow the 
bounds of christian charity. 

That is a false argument, which would prove it to be a 
recommendation of the episcopal church, that it possesses 
" a standard, which can neither be removed nor shaken — an 
unalterable test of the soundness of its doctrines."* This is 
one of the strongest arguments, which can possibly be used 
against the system of the church. That it forces on its mem- 
bers an u unshaken standard" of faith, is the very thing, 
which all christians, who value the scriptures, and the free- 

* Sermon on "Reasons for preferring the Church of England." 
Maturin's Sermons, London, 1819, p. 405, 



AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH. 95 

dom of conscience, must deprecate. It implies, that the 
persons who formed this standard in the reign of Edward 
the Sixth were empowered by a divine commission for this 
purpose, and received an illumination from Heaven, to en- 
able them to discover the true interpretation of the scrip- 
tures. No one can rely on this standard, till he believes 
these facts. 

The church of Rome is much more consistent in its views 
of ecclesiastical authority, than the English church. The 
Catholics lay it down as a necessary principle, that the 
church is infallible. This at once gives authority to tradi- 
tion, and affords a plausible reason for all ceremonies. 
They believe, that "as Jesus Christ established his church 
by preaching, — the unwritten word was the rule of Christi- 
anity, and retained the same authority after the writings 
of the New Testament were joined with it. For this rea- 
son they received with equal veneration all that was taught 
by the apostles, either in writing or by word of mouth."* 
The church was the sacred depository of this unwritten 
word, and through this channel it has been transmitted un- 
impaired to the present day. 

They suppose the " church to have been established by 
the Almighty, to be the guardian of the scriptures, and 
of tradition ; wherefore the church professes to say nothing 
of herself, to invent no new doctrine, and only to follow 
and declare the divine revelation by the interior direction 
of the holy spirit, which is given to her as a teacher. It is 
for this cause, that the children of God acquiesce in the 
judgment of the church, believing they have received from 
her mouth the oracles of the holy sprit ; and it is on ac- 
count of this belief, that after having said in the creed, 

* Exposition de la Doctrine de l'Eglise Catholique, par Bossuet. 
Oeuv. Tom. xviii. p. 140. 



96 AUTHORITl' OF THE CHURCH. 

» 

I believe in the holy spiril,ihej immediately add, theholy catho~ 
lie church ; by which they bind themselves to acknowledge 
the infalible and perpetual truth of the universal church, 
because this church herself, which they have always pro- 
fessed to believe, would cease to be a church, if it should 
cease to teach the revealed truth of God. To apprehend, 
therefore, that she has abused her power to establish a 
falsehood, is to have no faith in him, by whom she is gov- 
erned."* 

Here is consistency. If the church have authority in one 
case, it has in another. If any particular doctrine, rite, or 
ceremony, is to be received from tradition, every doctrine,rite, 
or ceremony, which cannot be traced back to a certain origin, 
is to be received on the same authority. Tradition is worth 
nothing, unless it have been transmitted by an infallible 
guide. Such a guide the church of Rome professes to fol- 
low, and is, therefore, entirely consistent in believing in the 
divine origin of its institutions. 

But the English church has destroyed this consistency, 
by rejecting infallibility, and still retaining the authority of 
tradition. One argument, which you bring in favor of the 
divine origin of episcopacy, as we have already seen, is, 
that the opponents of this doctrine, " have never been able 
to agree upon any one period, in which it could, even in 
their opinion, have probably originated." The same argu- 
ment is used by Bossuet to prove the divine origin of all 
the peculiarities of the Catholic church ;| and it will cer- 

*Ib. p. 141, 142, 143. See also on this subject, "The Unerring Au- 
thority of the Catholic Church in matters of Faith," Philadelphia, 
1789, Preliminary Propositions, and p. 75. Bossuet's Exposition, 
translated by Coppinger, New York, 1808, third edition, p. 122 — 
129. 

t " La marque certaine qu'une doctrine vient des apotres, est 
lorsqu' elle est embrassee par toutes les Eglises chretiennes, sans 
qu'on en puisse marquer le commencement." Expos, de la Doct. 
de L'Eglise Cath. § 18. 



AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH. 97 

tainly apply as well in one case as the other. As far as 
this argument goes, it is certain the church of England 
had no more reason for retaining episcopacy, the ceremony 
of confirmation, the sign of the cross in baptism, and saints' 
days, as divine institutions, than it had for retaining the 
doctrine of the real presence, use of the chrism in confir- 
mation, extreme unction, sacramental confession, and many 
other ceremonies of the Catholic church,which it rejected as 
corruptions. The former are as much founded on tradition, 
as the latter ; and neither of them can be of any validity, 
except on the Catholic principle of infallibility. Every 
dissenting church, at the present day, may with as much 
justice give the name of "corruptions" to these traditional 
ceremonies of the English church, as this church did to 
many of the Romish ceremonies which it rejected. 

With equal propriety might the bounds of philosohpical, 
physical, and political science have been fixed in the time of 
king Edward, as a standard of religious knowledge. The 
king and parliament assembled had the same authority to 
establish certain sciences, and to decree, that no innova- 
tions or improvements should be made, as they had to set- 
tle the rules of faith in religion. They might have decreed, 
that the earth was immoveable, and the sun, moon, and all 
the stars were whirled around it once in twenty-four hours, 
that the new system of Copernicus was a dangerous heresy, 
which all the king's well meaning subjects should carefully 
avoid. They might have enjoined it as a part of the phi- 
losophy of the realm, that alchymy and astrology were 
founded on the true principles of nature, as might pe proved 
" by most certain warrants" of physical phenomona; and 
we should now be edified with treatises on the philosopher's 
stone, transmutations, and a universal medicine. We 
should have books to tell us what planets ruled at our birth, 
interspersed with appropriate figures of horoscopes, schemes 



98 AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH. 

of nativity, and positions of the stars. They might have 
decreed, that the schoolmen were the only rational meta- 
physicians, and that every college in the kingdom should 
make the categories, analytics, topics, and sophistics of 
Aristotle an essential branch of education. 

There would have been just as much propriety in fixing 
rules of belief on these subjects, as there was in drawing up 
the thirty-nine articles, and the formularies of the cuurch, 
and setting them forth as a standard of religious faith. New- 
ton, and Bacon, and Locke, would have been considered 
meddling dissenters from the established philosophy ; but 
still, the force of truth would have been resistless, and 
would finally have prevailed. So it must be in religion. 
Error may be concealed and protected for a long time 
under the guise of forms, and in the mists of ignorance ; 
but the light of truth will at length penetrate so flimsy a 
covering, and dissolve the cloud. 

It is said, that creeds have a tendency to keep schism out 
of the church, by causing all its members to think alike. 
This would be a good reasoning, if the church were infalli- 
ble ; but on no other supposition. Unless it were infalli- 
ble, there could be no certainty of its having the only true 
faith ; and no church should claim authority to keep its 
members in ignorance and error to prevent schism. Milton, 
speaking on this subject with particular reference to the 
doctrines of the church, and the scheme of prelacy, ob- 
serves, " If to bring a numb and chill stupidity of soul, an 
unactive blindness of mind upon the people by their leaden 
doctrine, or no doctrine at all ; if to persecute all knowing 
and zealous christians by the violence of their courts, be to 
keep away schism, they keep schism away indeed ; and by 
this kind of discipline, all Italy and Spain is as purely and 
politically kept from schism, as England hath been by them. 
With as good plea might the dead palsy boast to a man, 



AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH. 99 

1 it is I that free you from stitches and pains, and the 
troublesome feeling of cold and heat, of wounds and strokes ; 
if I were gone, all these would molest you.' The winter 
might as well vaunt itself against the spring, ' I destroy 
all noisesome and rank w T eeds, I keep down all pestilent va- 
pors ;' yes, and all wholesome herbs, and all fresh dews, 
by your violent and hidebound frost ; but when the gentle 
west winds shall open the fruitful bosom of the earth, thus 
overgirded by your imprisonment, then the flowers put forth 
and spriDg, and then the sun shall scatter the mists, and the 
manuring hand of the tiller shall root up all that burdens 
the soil, without thanks to your bondage."* 

These remarks are but too applicable to fixed formula- 
ries of faith of every description. They are made and im- 
posed without authority ; and any attempt to force them on 
the minds of men is an encroachment on the liberty, and an 
insult to the understanding of christians. The apostles took 
upon them no such power. St Paul enjoins the Galatians 
to " stand fast in the liberty wherewith Christ had made 
them free, and not to be entangled again with the yoke of 
bondage." And to the Corinthians he writes, " We have 
not dominion over your faith, but are helpers of your joy ; 
for by faith ye stand." 2. Cor. i. 24. — Not by iaith in 
creeds, for this would be giving up our liberty, taking up- 
on us a yoke of bondage, and submitting to the dominion of 
others ; but by faith in the word of God, which all persons 
are free to consult ; and this freedom all must be allowed 
to enjoy, before they can be required to believe or obey. 

* The Reason of Church Government urged against Prelaty ; 
Prose Works, vol. i. p. 63. 



LETTER IV. 



ON THE DOCTRINAL CHARACTER OF THE 
THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES. 



Reverend and dear sir, 

The second part of your discourse is taken up in show- 
ing, that you are not a Calvinist, and in attempting to show, 
that the articles of the church are not calvinistic. I have 
no wish to go into a controversy, which has been so long 
agitated by different parties in the episcopal church itself, 
and which has been already more than exhausted ; yet I 
vnnot but think, that your conclusions on this subject are 
hut feebly supported by facts, and at the same time so broad 
and positive, as to lead some of your readers into mistake. 
I propose to do little more, than to quote certain passages 
from the Liturgy, Articles, and Homilies, and see whether 
they are not strikingly inconsistent with the sentiments you 
advance. 

After making various selections from the Confession of 
Faith, to exhibit what you consider the most offensive doc- 
trines of Calvinism, and assuring your readers, that such 
are not the doctrines of the church, you make the following 
remarks. 

M Explicit as is the language of the articles and services 



THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES. 101 

of our church on this head ; and strong as is the claim, 
which they make to consistency, nothing is more frequent, 
notwithstanding, on the part of the advocates of doctrines pe- 
culiarly styled ' calvinistic,' than the assertion, that such 
doctrines are maintained in our ninth and seventeenth arti- 
cles. Never was there a more groundless charge. Those 
articles do not in the remotest degree allude to the funda- 
mental and essential tenets of Calvinism." 

Let us inquire, in the first place, what are the " funda- 
mental and essential doctrines of Calvinism." I believe 
Calvinism is usually summed up in what are called the Jive 
points, namely, total depravity, election, particular redemp- 
tion, effectual calling, and perseverance of the saints. What- 
ever language may be used in the Confession of Faith, the 
Institutes of Calvin, or any where else, to express and il- 
lustrate these doctrines, and however unscriptural such lan- 
guage may be, I suppose the substance of the whole is con- 
tained in these five points. The minor doctrines of Calvin- 
ism, such as salvation by grace, justification by faith, special 
influence of the spirit, are to be referred to these as their 
original stock. 

If we examine these points of Calvinism, we shall find 
the two first only to be fundamental doctrines, of which the 
three last are necessary consequences. If all men have 
originally a corrupt nature, which renders them worthy of 
divine wrath and condemnation, and if God in his mercy 
have decreed, according to " his everlasting purpose," that 
a certain number of his creatures shall be rescued from this 
deplorable condition and finally be saved ; it is a natural and 
necessary consequence, that all such persons are redeemed 
by a particular redemption, are effectually called, and will 
persevere to the end. The decree of election extends only 
to particular persons, and therefore the redemption it pro- 
cures is a particular redemption ; it is an absolute decree, 



102 DOCTRINAL CHARACTER 

and therefore all whom it calls, are effectuallly called ; it is 
an immutable decree, and therefore all whom it restores to 
the condition of saints, must retain this condition. 

The fundamental doctrines of Calvinism, then, are total 
depravity, and election ; and if these are found to be con- 
tained in the articles and homilies, I suppose it may be right- 
ly inferred, that such are the doctrines of the church. 
When an established church is built on a code of laws, ar- 
ticles, and formularies, which have been fixed by convoca- 
tions and conventions, where shall we look for the tenets 
of this church but in this code itself ? Interpretations and 
commentaries, to make articles understood, are very suspi- 
cious. Erudite researches, to find out what the framers of 
the articles meant, are useless It is to be presumed they 
meant what they have expressed. If the church fancy it 
has grown wiser and improved since the days of Cranmer, 
and find doctrines contained in some of the articles, which 
it cannot receive, let it reject such articles, and not resort to 
conceits and paraphrases to explain away the meaning, 
which they irresistably force upon every unbiassed mind. 

Let us see what the church teaches in regard to these 
two principal points of Calvinism. A single reading of the 
articles, I am persuaded, would convince most persons, that 
these doctrines are in substance taught there with as much 
emphasis as in any calvinistic formulary. I will bring for- 
ward a few passages, which, if they do not imply the total 
depravity of our nature, and the imputation of Adam's sin 
to his posterity, it will be no easy task to tell what they do 
imply. The ninth article has generally been thought to be 
of itself decisive on this point, although you are resolved 
it shall countenance no such doctrine. The following are 
the words of the article, as it stands in the Book of Com- 
mon Prayer. 

" Original sin standeth not in the following of Adam (as 



OF THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES. 103 

the Pelagians do vainly talk,) but it is the fault and corrup- 
tion of the nature of every man, that naturally is engendered 
of the offspring of Adam, whereby man is very far gone from 
original righteousness, and is of his own nature inclined to evil, 
so that the flesh lusteth always contrary to the spirit ; and 
therefore in every person born into this world it deserveth 
GoaVs wrath and damnation. And this infection of nature 
doth remain, yea, in them that are regenerated." 

Where will you find the calvinistic tenet of original sin, 
and the total depravity of human nature, expressed in strong- 
er terms than these. The " vain talk " of Pelagius con- 
sisted in maintaining, that the sin of Adam was not imputed 
to his posterity, and that we are born as free from guilt, as 
if Adam had never transgressed. This was called a heresy, 
and to guard against it, the article takes care to tell us in 
terms, which it is presumed no one can mistake, what the 
church understands by original sin. And as it respects de- 
pravity, what is " that corruption of the nature of every 
man, which deserveth God's wrath and damnation," if it 
be not what the Calvinists call total depravity ? It will be 
difficult to form a definition of such a quality, if it be not 
contained in these words.* 

* The bishop of Lincoln has reminded us, that the article does 
not say we are totally depraved, but only " very far gone from orig- 
inal righteousness." This isa quibble, which few, probably, would 
have discovered without aid. Whoever resorts to it, needs give no 
other indication of the impressions he receives from the general 
import of the article. That a bishop, and a scholar, should de- 
scend to this kind of trifling, we cannot but wonder 5 especially 
when it is considered that the articles were first drawn up in Latin, 
and that this is a very faulty translation. In the Latin it stands, 
«' Ab original! justitia quant longissime distet," Gone as far as possi- 
ble from original righteousness Bishop of Lincoln's Refutation of 
Calvinism, chap. i. p. 50. Scott's reply to Tomline, vol i. p. 80. 
The Fathers, Reformers, &c. in Harmony with Calvin, p. 43. 



104 DOCTRINAL CHARACTER 

Compare this article with the following extracts. " The 
condition of man after the fall of Adam is such, that he can* 
not turn and prepare himself by his own natural strength and 
good works to faith and calling upon God." Art. x. 
a Works done before the grace of Christ and the inspiration 
of his spirit, are not pleasant to God y forasmuch as they 
spring not of faith in Jesus Christ, neither do they make 
men meet to receive grace ; — yea rather, for that they are 
not done as God hath willed and commanded them to be 
done, we doubt not but they have the nature of sin." Art. 
xiii. " All men are conceived and born in sin, and they who 
are in the flesh cannot please God."* 

It is scarcely necessary to remark on these passages. 
Their confirmation of what has been above shown to be the 
sense of the ninth article must be obvious. What else but 
a corrupt and depraved state of our nature, in as strong a 
sense as Calvin himself could have expressed it, can render 
us incapable of having faith, and calling upon God ? He 
must be a depraved being, indeed, who is not fit to call on 
his Maker. Can the good works of any being, who is not 
totally depraved , be " of the nature of sin, and not pleasant 
to God ?" Thus we see this doctrine is most unequivocally 
taught in several articles of the church. 

Let us turn to the Homilies. In the thirty-fifth article, 
these books are enjoined " to be read in churches by the 
ministers diligently and distinctly," as containing " a godly 
and wholesome doctrine, and necessary for these times." 
The Homilies, therefore, I suppose to be of equal authority 
with the articles, or any part of the church service.")* In 

* " Baptism of such as are of riper years." 

t By an order of the convention in 1801, the reading of the Ho- 
milies in churches was suspended, till a revision of them could be 
"conveniently made for the clearing of them, as well from obso- 
lete words and phrases, as from local references." Nothing more 



OF THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES- 105 

the second Homily concerning the death and passion of our 
Saviour, it is stated, " When our great grand father Adam 
had broken God's commandment, in eating the apple for- 
bidden him in Paradise, at the motion and suggestion of his 
wife, he purchased thereby not only to himself, but also to his 
posterity forever, the just wrath and indignation of God, who, 
according to his former sentence pronounced at the giving 
of the commandment, condemned both him and all his to 
everlasting death, both of body and soul ; — he was cast out 
of Paradise, he was no longer a citizen of heaven, but a 
firebrand of hell, and a bond slave of the devil " " Man of 
his own nature is fleshly and carnal, corrupt and naught, 
sinful and disobedient to God, without any spark of goodness 
in him, without any virtuous or godly motion, only given to 
evil thoughts and wicked deeds."* 

Again, in the second part of the Homily of the Misery of 
Man, we read ; " Of ourselves we be crab-trees, that can 
bring forth no apples. We be of ourselves of such earth as 
can bring forth but weeds, nettles, briers, cockle, and dar- 
nel. — Hitherto have we heard what we are of ourselves ; 
very sinful, wretched, and damnable; we are not able to 
think a good thought or work a good deed, so that we can find 
in ourselves no hope of salvation, but rather whatsoever 
maketh unto our destruction." 

And again, after describing the deplorable condition into 

seems to have been done till 1814, when the convention " proposed 
to the house of clerical and lay deputies, to make a standing order 
to every bishop, and to the ecclesiastical authority in every state 
destitute of a bishop, to be furnished, as soon as may be, with a 
copy or copies of said work, and to require it to be studied by all 
candidates for the ministry within their respective bounds." 

In consequence of tbia resolve of the convention, an edition of 
the Homilies was speedily published in New-York, but without alter 
ation. It was printed literally from the last Oxford Edition. 
* Homily for Whitsunday, Part. 1. 
10 



106 DOCTRINAL CHARACTER 

which Adam was brought by the fall, the Homily contin- 
ues ; " This so great and miserable a plague, if it had only 
rested on Adam, who first offended, it had been so much 
the easier, and might the better have been borne. But it 
fell not only on him, but also on his posterity and children for- 
ever, so that the whole brood of Adam's flesh should sus- 
tain the self same fall and punishment, which their forefath- 
er by his offence most justly had deserved. — As in Adam 
all men universally sinned, so in Adam all men universally 
received the reward of sin ; that is to say, became mortal, 
and subject unto death, having in themselves nothing but 
everlasting damnation both of body and soul ; — they were 
nothing else but children of perdition, partakers of hell 
fire."* 

Quotations to the same effect from the Homilies might be 
multiplied. These are enough. Where is this fundamen- 
tal doctrine of Calvinism expressed in stronger language ? 
You will search the Institutes in vain to find a parallel. 
What is the total depravity of man, if it be not to be " of 
his own nature without any spark of goodness in him, without 
any virtuous or godly motion?" Are we not totally de- 
praved in the most absolute sense, if " we are of ourselves 
very sinful, wretched and damnable, not able either to think 
a good thought, or work a good deed V How will you ex- 
press the imputation of Adam's guilt to his posterity, if it 
be not contained in the following words ; namely, " he pur- 
chased not only to himself, hut also to his posterity forever, 
the just wrath and indignation of God ?" And again ; a this 
great and miserable plague fell not only on him, but also on 
his posterity and children for ever." 

When you consider these express declarations of the Ar- 
ticles and Homilies, how can you imply, as you have done, 

* Homily of the Nativity. 



OF THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES. 107 

that " the imputation of the guilt of Adam's sin to his pos- 
terity, as the cause of their condemnation to eternal pun- 
ishment," is not a doctrine of the church ? On what 
grounds could Dr. How, who has attempted so elaborately 
to vindicate the church against the charge of Calvinism, 
make the very broad assertion, that " there is not a trace 
of this doctrine in our Articles, our Homilies, or our Pray- 
ers ?"* Such assertions will be received by those only, 
who never read the Articles, or look into the Homilies. It 
is a little remarkable, that any writer should venture to haz- 
ard them ; for if the Homilies should ever be read constant- 
ly in churches, as the Articles enjoin, the people must soon 
discover them to be groundless. In a word, if the total de- 
pravity of man, and the imputation of Adam's sin to his 
posterity, be not doctrines of the church, it will be impos- 
sible to ascertain from its Articles, Service, and Homilies, 
any one doctrine, which can be called such. 

On the other fundamental doctrine of Calvinism, the sev- 
enteenth article of the church is full and decisive. It is 
comprised in the following words. 

" Predestination to life is the everlasting purpose of God, 
whereby, (before the foundations of the world were laid) 
he hath constantly decreed, by his counsel, secret to us, to 
deliver from curse and damnation, those whom he hath 
chosen in Christ out of mankind, and to bring thern by 
Christ to everlasting salvation, as vessels made to honor. 
Wherefore they, which be endued with so excellent a bene- 
fit of God, be called according to God's purpose, by his 
spirit working in due season ; they through grace obey the 
calling ; they be justified freely ; they be made sons of God 
by adoption ; they be made like the image of his only be- 
gotten son Jesus Christ ; they walk religiously in good 

* How's Vindication, p. 259. 



108 DOCTRINAL CHARACTER 

works ; and at length by God's mercy they attain to ever- 
lasting felicity. 

" As the godly consideration of predestination, and our 
election in Christ, is full of sweet, pleasant, and unspeaka- 
ble comfort to godly persons, and such as feel in themselves 
the working of the spirit of Christ, mortifying the works 
of the flesh and their earthly members, and drawing up 
their mind to high and heavenly things, as well, because it 
doth greatly establish and confirm their faith of eternal sal- 
vation, to be enjoyed through Christ, as because it doth fer- 
vently kindle their love towards God ; so for curious and 
carnal persons, lacking the spirit of Christ, to have continu- 
ally before their eyes the sentence of God's predestination, 
is a mcst dangerous downfall, whereby the devil doth thrust 
them either into desperation, or into wretchlessness of 
most unclean living, no less perilous than desperation. 

" Furthermore, we must receive God's promises in such 
wise, as they be generally'- set forth in holy scripture ; and 
in our doings, that will of God is to be followed, which we 
have expressly declared unto us in the word of God." 

He must look with very partial eyes, who will discover 
this article to be less explicit, less unequivocal, or less posi- 
tive, on the doctrine of election, than the language, which 
is usually found in calvinistic books. Let this article be 
read by any one, who has no knowledge of the explanations, 
which it has received from anti-calvinistic interpreters, and 
do you believe he will suspect for a moment, that it is not 
intended to teach the doctrine of absolute decrees ? 

Compare the first part of the article with the following 
words, taken from the calvinistic Confession of Faith. 
11 Those of mankind that are predestinated unto life, God, 
before the foundation of the world was laid, according to 
his eternal and immutable purpose, and the secret counsel 
and good pleasure of his will, hath chosen in Christ unto 



OF THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES, 109 

everlasting glory."* Do you not perceive a striking simi- 
larity here, not only in ideas, but in words ? The Calvin- 
ists have enlarged, and manfully carried out and defended 
this doctrine, but the root, the substance of the whole, is 
as clearly contained in the seventeenth article, as it is in the 
Institutes, the Calvinistic Confession, or the decisions of the 
Synod at Dort. 

You have remarked, with others of the Arminian school, 
that nothing is said in the article about reprobation. Why 
should anything be said ? This makes no part of the doc- 
trine itself ; but is only a consequence. If it has been de- 
creed by " the everlasting purpose of God," that a certain 
number shall be delivered " from curse and damnation," 
nothing is more evident, than that the remainder must be 
reprobate. 

You have said, also, that the article " has reference to 
the general election of the church, as the recipient of the 
covenant of grace, and not an allusion to the future state of 
individuals." From what part of the article can such an 
inference be drawn ? This may be the doctrine of scripture, 
but what do you find in the article, which will give any 
sanction to such a construction ? All, who are elected, 
are to be " delivered from curse and damnation ;" and is it 
your opinion, that every individual of the church is to be of 
this description ? And what is this a curse and damnation," 
but the future punishment of individuals ? Would these 
terms be used in reference to a whole church receiving the 
covenant of grace ? Can they be used in reference to any 
thing, but the future state of individuals ? The article goes 
upon the supposition, that all by nature are under a curse, 
and declares, that a certain number, by the decrees of God, 
are delivered from this curse ; and it is difficult to tell what 

Confession of Faith, chap. iii. § 5. 
10* 



110 DOCTRINAL CHARACTER 

calvinistic election is, more or less than this. It is an ab- 
solute and arbitrary election ; for it is expressly stated to be 
according to " the everlasting purpose of God" Nor is any 
thing said of its being made in consequence of a foreknowl- 
edge of conduct. 

No one can deny that Bishop Burnet has examined this 
article with the greatest fairness and candor. He has 
pointed out with precision and acuteness the different 
sentiments, which have been held on the doctrine of 
election, and although his own opinions were not calvin- 
istic, he says of this article, " It is not to be denied but 
that the doctrine seems to be framed according to St. Aus- 
tin's doctrine. It supposes men to be under a curse and 
damnation, antecedently to predestination." After exhibit- 
ing some of the difficulties with which they had to contend, 
who would explain the article in a different way, he goes 
on to remark ; " on the other hand, the Calvinists have less 
occasion to scruple, since the article does seem more plainly to 
favor th£?n. v * This is the testimony of a man, who has 
written more judiciously, and with more talent probably on 
the articles, than any other, and whose opinion, in regard to 
the doctrine of election, was actually contrary to the decis- 
ion of his candor and judgment on the doctrine of the ar- 
ticle. 

In the Collect for All-Saints' Day it is said ; " who has 
knit together thine elect in one communion and fellowship, 
in the mystical body of thy son." The following passages 
are contained in the English Prayer Book, but left out of 
the American, for reasons best known to the members of 
the convention, since they contain nothing more on the 
doctrine of election, than what is clearly expressed in the 
seventeenth article. Thus, in the Catechism, the child is 

* Burnet's Exposition of the Thirty-nine Articles, Art. xvii. 



OF THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES. Ill 

made to say, " I believe in God the Holy Ghost, who sanc- 
tifieth me, and all the elect people of God." In the burial 
service is the following petition, — u beseeching thee, shortly 
to accomplish the number of thine elect, and to hasten thy 
kingdom." If I mistake not these phrases are very similar 
to those often used by Calvinists, and why should we not 
take them in the same sense ? 

In the Homily on Alms Deeds we are told of those, 
" whom God hath appointed to everlasting salvation;" who 
are " the undoubted children of God, appointed to everlasting 
life ;" and who " are sons of God, and elect of him unto sal- 
vation.'' 1 * 

Such are the evidences drawn from the Articles, Homi- 
lies and Service of the Church. If any o.ie can read these 
extracts and not be convinced, that the fundamental doctrines 
of Calvinism, namely, total depravity, with the imputation of 
Adam's sin, and election, are clearly taught in them, it may 
be doubted whether it were possible for language to be so 
constructed as to produce conviction. Every man does 
not examine with so much freedom from prejudice, perhaps, 
as bishop Burnet, nor with so determined a resolution to 
make his own opinions consistent w ith the scriptures, and 
to let the articles speak in their natural language, without 
endeavoring to press them into his service by force. If a 
man has settled it in his mind that an article, partly ambigu- 
ous and partly metaphysical, shall have a particular mean- 
ing, it is no difficult task to give it a plausible turn into any 
direction he pleases. When he deserts the plain construc- 
tion, and goes into explanations merely possible, he at once 
excites a suspicion, that he is not so much concerned to 
ascertain the meaning of the article, as to determine in what 

* Horailes, New- York, 1815, p. 329. 



112 DOCTRINAL CHARACTER 

way it can be best explained to support the opinions, which 
he has already formed from other sources. 

You suppose, that the closing part of the article does 
away the possibility of proving from the first part the cal- 
vinistic doctrine of election. It is there said, "that will 
of God is to be followed, which we have expressly declared 
to us in the word of God." This you think is not consist- 
ent with Calvinism ; and therefore, no part of the article 
can be considered calvinistic. But let me ask, if every 
sincere Calvinist does not believe his sentiments to be ac- 
cording to what is "expressly declared in the word of God?" 
The Calvinist, as weli as the Arn.inian, will acknowledge 
the truth and force of this clause of the article, whatever 
construction he may give to any other part. The person 
who receives the article in its literal sense, and sees in it 
the doctrine of election in its most decided form, will re- 
receive the last clause as one of the first rules, which is to 
guide him in the search of religious truth. 

You also intimate, that the doctrine of election cannot 
belong to the church, because it is taught in the articles, 
that " the offering of Christ was made for all the sins of 
the whole world " Would you infer from this, that 
Calvinists do not hold to the same belief? Do not all 
christians of every denomination believe, that " the free 
gift came upon all men unto justification of life." Rom. v. 1. 
- — that Christ " is the propitiation for our sins, and not for 
ours only but for the sins of the whole world " 1 John, ii, 2. 
— and that God "would have all men to be saved ?" 1 Tim. 
ii. 4. Calvinists will not reject these texts of scripture. 
They will not deny, that the death of Christ was sufficient 
to take away the sins of the whole world. It is not the 
sufficiency of the sacrifice for the salvation of all, which 
they deny, but the fact, that all will receive the benefit of 
this sacrifice. All you have said, therefore respecting the 



OF THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES. 113 

doctrines of the Articles and Church Service, is perfectly- 
consistent with Calvinism. The church believes, as you 
say, that Christ by his death " made a satisfaction for the 
sins of the whole world ;" Calvinists believe the same. 

I do not pretend to reconcile inconsistencies in the articles. 
Upon the calvinistic scheme they are sufficiently consist- 
ent. If you make some of them directly opposed to 
Calvinism, while others maintain the great doctrines of this 
faith, you put them at an irreconcileable variance. This 
perplexity will be avoided by taking them in their natural 
sense. 

There needs no stronger argument, in favor of the articles 
and formularies of the church being entirely calvinistic, 
than the fact that every Calvinist wiil receive all of them, 
which have any bearing on doctrines, without limitation 
or paraphrase. 

Bishop White and Dr. How have been at much pains to 
show, that the original reformers were not Calvinists. But 
are not their labors somewhat gratuitous ? It is not the opin- 
ions of Cranmer, or Ridley, or Hooper, or Latimer, which 
the humble christian now searches after, when he consults 
his Prayer Book, but the sentiments conveyed in the articles 
themselves. He is not called on by the church to believe 
what Cranmer believed, but what the articles contain. It 
will only perplex and confound him to accumulate a mass 
of evidence to prove, that such were the opinions ot\one re- 
former, and such of another. If the Prayer Book will not 
explain itself, it were better to lay it aside,and adopt one that 
will, than to go back three hundred years to the troublous 
times of the reformation, to know what religious tenets 
were then agitating the world. 

But after the elaborate efforts of these waiters to prove, 
that the sentiments of the reformers were not calvinistic, 
few, probably, who are not influenced by some previous 
bias, will be conducted from their premises to the same 



114 DOCTRINAL CHARACTER 

conclusions. The subject is examined by bishop White in 
particular, with no common degree of ability, and with that 
temper of christian moderation and candor, which is consist- 
ent with his character. To my mind, however, his success 
has not been equal to the talents and learning he has dis- 
played. The following passage, which he quotes from 
Mosheim, and endeavors to answer, is strongly against him. 
" When it was proposed under the reign of Edward the 
Sixth to give a fixed and stable form to the doctrine and 
discipline of the church, Geneva was acknowledged as a 
sister church ; and the theological system there established 
by Calvin was adopted, and rendered the public rule of faith 
in England"* The bishop replies to this, by questioning 
the authority of Moshiem, and says he probably quoted 
from Neal, who is not always to be trusted. But it is hardly 
fair to elude, in this way, the testimony of one of the most 
impartial and candid writers, who has ever written on ec- 
clesiastical history. Whether he took it from Neal or not, 
we can scarcely be allowed to suppose, that a writer so re- 
markable for accuracy should speak in so unqualified a man- 
ner of the theological tenets of a national church, without 
being fully convinced, that he was speaking from the best 
authority ; especially when it is considered, that it was a 
case in which no prejudice or feelings of his own could in- 
terfere. 

Bishop Burnet, in his exposition of the seventeenth arti- 
cle, seems to countenance the representation of Mosheim. 
u In England," says he, " the first reformers were generally 
in the Sublapsarian hypothesis." This hypothesis embraced 
all the essential doctrines of Calvinism ; and although the 
name of Sublapsarians was not given to any sect of christ- 

* Bishop White's Comparitive Views of the Controversy between 
Calvinists and Arminians, Vol. ii. p. 4. 



OF THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES. iw 

ians till after the reformation, yet if the bishop means any 
thing, he must be supposed to mean, that the leading tenets 
of the reformers, were similar to those of the Sublapsarians; 
that is, they were calvinistic. 

Furthermore, it is well known that archbishop Cranmer, 
the chief of the English reformers, who drew up the 
articles of the Church of England, wrote to Calvin request- 
ing his aid, and that a correspondence was kept up between 
them. It is well known, also, that Calvin wrote to king 
Edward the Sixth while Cranmer was engaged in forming 
the articles. Is it probable, that such an intimacy would 
have existed at this time, and that a familiar correspondence 
on these subjects would have been carried on, unless the reli- 
gious sentiments of the parties were similar ? 

Another argument to prove the sentiments of the leading 
reformers to have been calvinistic, is drawn from their own 
writings and from writings which they approved. King 
Edward's Catechism, or, as it was afterwards called, Dr. 
NowePs Catechism, was approved by Cranmer and Ridley, 
if not in part made by them.* This catechism contains the 
following words, " As many as were in this faith steadfast, 
were forechosen, predestinated,and appointed to everlasting life 
before the world was mae?e."f 

In Latimer's Sermons it is said, u We must needs grant 
ourselves to be in like displeasure unto God, as our father 
Adam was. By reason hereof we be of ourselves the very 
children of the indignation and vengeance of 6W."J These 

* This Catechism " was subscribed by those martyrs for the pro- 
testant faith, archbishop Cranmer and bishop Ridley, and ordered 
to be taught in schools throughout the kingdom." — Sir Richard 
Hill's Apology, p. 25. 

+ See a work entitled, " Calvin in Harmony with the Fathers 
and Reformers ; by a Layman," p. 136. 

t Calvin in Harmony with the Fathers, &c.p. 139. 



116 DOCTRINAL CHARACTER 

sentiments are expressed still more decidedly in the margin- 
al notes of the " Great Bible," published under the direction 
of Cranmer, in 1549. " Our election is by grace, and not by 
works. Few are elect or chosen. We are elect of God the 
Father, through his good will before the construction of the 
world, that by the grace and merit of Christ, we should 
have health, serving all men by charity. The elect cannot 
be accused, forasmuch as God justifieth them. The predes- 
tinate are saints or holy people, made like to the image of 
the Son of God, and called, justified and glorified by him."* 
In the " Bishop's Bible," published in 1568, the same doc- 
trine is found. In a note on Rom. xi. 35, it is said, " By 
this the apostle declareth, that God by his free will and 
election doth give salvation unto men, without any deserts 
of their own. "| In the "Quarto Bible," printed 1576, is 
contained the following note on Matth. xxv. 34. " Hereby 
God declareth the certainty of our predestination ; whereby 
we are saved, because we were chosen in Christ before the 
foundation of the world ;" and on Mark xiii. 22. " The 
elect may waiver and be troubled, but they cannot utterly 
be deceived or overcome "J 

In the work here referred to, many other extracts of a 
similar nature may be seen. The Bibles above-mentioned 
were published under the express direction of the first re- 
formers, and the clergy of those times. After reading these 
extracts, it is no longer possible to doubt of the tenets of 
the reformers who framed and adopted, the Articles 
of the Church. We can have no better authority, 
than their own writings, or books which came out un- 
der their sanction. Dr. Heylin, who was an anti-calvinist, 
and whom the bishop of Lincoln quotes with approbation, 
gives his testimony, in his Life of Laud, to the prevalence 
of the calvinistic tenets in the time of Queen Elizabeth. 

* lb. 145. t p. 146. X p. 146. 



OP THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLFS. 117 

a Predestination," says he, "and the points depending there- 
upon, were received as the established doctrines of the Church 
of England" And speaking of the seventeenth article, he 
says, that the predestination there denned, " doth presup- 
pose a curse and state of damnation, in which all mankind 
was presented to the sight of God ; — that it was of some 
special ones alone, elect, called forth, and reserved in Christ, 
and not generally extended to all mankind."* 

The same sentiments prevailed at the universities in the 
reigns of Elizabeth and James the First, which appears by 
the Theses, that were maintained at them by candidates for 
the degree of doctor in divinity. The following are select- 
ed from those, which were maintained at Oxford. 

u The salvation of the elect is perfect, so that they can- 
not perish* " 

" The whole salvation of the elect is purely gratui- 
tous." 

" Whether election be from works foreseen ? De- 
nied."! 

In the time of queen Mary, certain persons, who were 
imprisoned on account of their religious sentiments, were 
accused of denying the doctrines of predestination and origi- 
nal sin. Bradford, prebendary of St. Paul's, visited them 
in prison, and endeavored to convince them of their er- 
rors, but without avail. Being " apprehensive that they 
would do a great deal of mischief in the church, he, in con- 
cert with bishop Ferrar, Taylor, and Philpot, wrote to Cran- 
mer, Ridley, and Latimer, at Oxford, to take some cogni- 
zance of the matter, and consult together about remedying 
it. Upon this occasion Ridley wrote back a letter Of Gj i's 

* See Cilvin in Harmony with the Fathers, <fec. p. 113, 164. 
t Electorum certa est salus, perire non possint. 
Tota salus electorum est mere gratuita. 

Jin electio sit ex prcevisi, opct ibus ? Meg. — lb. p. 165, 16 3, 
11 



US DOCTRINAL CHARACTER 

Election and Predestination , and Bradford wrote another up- 
on the same subject."* Is it probable that Bradford would 
have written such a letter to Cranmer, Ridley, and Latim- 
er, had it not been well known, that they believed in pre- 
destination ? 

The Lambeth Articles are usually quoted as another proof 
of the Calvinism of the English church, and not without 
reason. Some difficulties, it seems, had arisen among the 
officers and professors of the University at Cambridge on 
certain points of doctrine, which were referred to the arch- 
bishop of Canterbury. He, in conjunction with the arch- 
bishop of York, the bishop of London, the dean of Ely, 
and other dignitaries of the church, assembled at the ar- 
chiepiscopal palace in Lambeth, November 10th, 1595, 
drew up a number of articles, which were sent to the Uni- 
versity, as " the avowed sense of the church of England." 
Among these articles were the following. 

" Cod from eternity hath predestinated certain men unto 
life; certain men he hath reprobated." 

" There is predetermined a certain number of the predes- 
tinate, which can neither be augmented, nor diminished." 

" Those who are not predestinated unto salvation shall 
necessarily be damned for their sins." 

Heylin says, the queen was much offended at these arti- 
cles, and caused the archbishop to recall them. But from 
his own account it is obvious, that her offence arose not so 
much from her disapprobation of the articles, as from the 
presumption of the archbishop in framing them without con- 
sulting her, and in promulgating them without her authori- 
ty.^ Nor was her being offended any evidence, that they 

* Neal's History of the Puritans, Lond. 1732, Vol I. p. 103. 

t This offence of queen Elizabeth, was consistent with her im- 
perious temper in regard to all theological concerns. The ecclesi- 
astical court, which she established under the charge of this same 
archbishop of Canterbury, was little inferior, in its severities and 



OF THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES. 119 

did not express the prevailing sentiments of the church. 
Where shall we look for the sense of the church, if not to 
the opinions of its highest dignitaries ?f 

Neal says, in alluding to the controversy, which com- 
menced in the University of Cambridge, u All the Protest- 
ant divines in the church, whether puritans, or others, 
seemed of one mind hitherto about the doctrines of faith, 
but now there arose a party, which were first for softening, 
and then for overthrowing the received opinions about pre- 
destination, perseverance, free will, effectual grace, and the 
extent of our Saviour's redemption. The articles of the 
church of England, were thought by all men hitherto, to fa- 
vor the explication of Calvin ; but these divines would 
make them stand neuter, and leave a latitude for the sub- 
scriber to take either side of the question." And again ; 
" The divines of Oxford, and indeed all the first reformers, 

injustice, to the Inquisition itself. And after the Commons, in a 
petition to the prelates, had made some complaints of their griev- 
ances, the queen reproved them severely for their presumption. 
In a speeeh from the throne, "she told them, that whoever found 
fault with the church threw a slander upon her, since she was ap- 
pointed by God supreme ruler over it ; and no heresies or schisms 
could prevail in the kingdom hut by her permission and negligence." 
— Hume's History of England, vol. v. p. 269. See also Camden's 
History of the Reign of Queen Elizabeth, Lond. 1675, p 454. 

t See the Lambeth Articles at laige in the bishop of Lincoln's 
Refutation of Calvinism, p. 560, quoted from Heylin's Quinquar- 
ticular History. Also Hill's Apology for the Doctrines of the 
church of England, in Letters to the Rev. Charles Daubney, p. 88. 

In the letter written on this occasion by the vice-chancellor, and 
heads of the University, to the chancellor, they say, " we are right 
sorry to have such occasion to trouble your lordship, as the peace 
of this University beino; brought into peril by the late reviving of 
new opinions." &c. — Strype's Annals, vol. iv. fol. p. 229. These 
new opinions were the anti-calvinistic tenets, which were then be- 
ginning to spring up in the University. 



120 DOCTRINAL CHARACTER 

were in the same sentiments with those of Cambridge about 
the disputed points ; Calvin's Institutions being read pub- 
licly in the schools by appointment of the convocation."* 

Another evidence of the Calvinism of the English church 
at an early period, is the part it took in the famous Synod 
of Dort. The express purpose of this Synod was to es- 
tablish, by the greatest weight of authority, the peculiar te- 
nets of Calvinism, and to adopt effectual measures for sup- 
pressing the rising heresy of Arminius, which was found to 
be increasing to an alarming degree. The Synod was com- 
posed of numerous delegates from different parts of Hol- 
land, Germany, from Geneva, and Great Britian. The five 
points of Calvinism were each separately considered, and 
judged without a dissenting voice " to be agreeable to God's 
word. "| They next proceeded religiously to excommuni- 
cate all remonstrants, or followers of Arminius, as persons, 
who " must of necessity be punished with a very severe 
censure, such as hath in all ages been inflicted by the church 
in such cases. "J The last act of their synodical deliberations, 
was to excommunicate Conrad Vorstius, a professor of Ley- 
den, and teacher of Arminianism ; and to procure a decree 
of banishment against him from the States-General of Hol- 
land^ 

* History of the Puritans, vol. i. p. 579, 584. 

T In the Title to these articles, they are said to contain a doc- 
trine, " quam synodus Dordrechtana Ferbo Dei consentaneam, at- 
que in Kcclesiis Reformatis hactenus receptam esse, judicat." Vide 
Sylloge Confessionam sub tempus Refonnandee Ecclesiae editarum, 
etcset. Oxon. 1804, p. 369. 

I See " The Judgment of the Synod holden at Dort, concerning 
the Five Articles ; as also their sentence touching Conradus Vors- 
tius," Lond lb!9, p. 90. 

§ Among other heinous offences charged against Vorstius, he was 
accused of " making bold " with such doctrines " as concerne the 



OF THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES. 121 

Is it not absurd to suppose, that this delegation would 
have been sent from tbe English church, if the church it- 
self were not calvinistic ? The object of the synod was 
well known beforehand ; and none of the English delegates 
dissented from a single resolution that was passed on points 
of doctrine. Nor were they ever afterwards charged with not 
having properly represented their church in this respect. 
• As they were the only delegates present from an episcopal 
church, some complaint was made after their return, because 
they did not protest against certain proceedings relating to 
church government ; but they vindicated themselves on the 
plea, that they took no share in these proceedings, and felt 
it their duty to act only on subjects of doctrine. They 
published what they called a " Joint Attestation," in which 
they explained their motives, and vindicated themselves in 
a very honorable and dignified manner. Their closing 
words are worthy of notice in connexion with the present 
subject. 

" As in that synod our special care and perpetual endeav- 
or was to guide our judgments by that sound doctrine, which 
ice had received from the Church of England, so we were 
far, and ever shall be from usurping our mother's authority, 
or attempting to obtrude upon her children any of our sy- 
nodical conclusions, as obligatory to them ; yet remaining 
ourselves nevertheless resolved, that whatsoever was assent- 
ed unto, or subscribed by us concerning the five articles, 
is not only warrantable by the holy scriptures, but also con- 
formable to the received doctrine of our said venerable mother."* 

trinitie of persons in the godhead — the hypostaticall union — and 
partly avouching expressly many things contrary to the trueth of 
God — either wholly consorting, or very neere bordering upon the 
blasphemies of the balefull heretique Socinus." ib. p. 102, 103. 

* " A Joint Attestation, avowing that the Discipline of the Church 
of England was not impeached at the Synod of Dort." Lond. 1626 
p. 25, 26. 

11* 



122 DOCTRINAL CHARACTER 

This was signed by the bishop of LandafF, and the four 
delegates, who were sent with him to the Synod of Dort. 
We thus have not only the presumptive evidence, that the 
church was calvinistic, from the circumstance of its send- 
ing delegates to this synod, but the positive testimony of the 
other delegates themselves, that the doctrines of Calvinism, 
which they had given their voice to establish in the synod, 
were such as they had received from the Church of England. 

It is a question, which may with propriety be asked, why 
predestination was introduced in any shape into the Arti- 
cles of the Church, if the framers of these articles did not 
believe in this doctrine ? It is found neither in the Augs- 
burg nor the Saxon confession, both of which are said to 
have been principally from the pen of Melancthon.* It is 
evident from these confessions, that the doctrine of election 
formed no part of Melancthon's creed. Now the Armini- 
an interpreters would have us understand, that Cranmer 
and his associates were much more intimate with Melanc- 
thon than with Calvin, and that the Augsburg Confession 
was their principal model. This Confession is silent on the 
subject of predestination, although it is full on all the other 
important points of Calvinism. It maintains the doctrines 
of original sin, the depravity of human nature, the entire 
inability of man, justification by faith, salvation by grace, 
and the vicarious sacrifice of Christ. f If this confession 
were the model of the English reformers, why should they 

* Luther could not appear at the Diet of Augsburg, because he 
had been proscribed by the edict of Worms ; yet he remained, dur- 
ing the session of the Diet, in the neighboring town of Coburg 
where " his advice was constantly sought." Hence the Augs- 
burg Confession contained the sentiments of Luther, as well as Me- 
lancthon, and the German princes by whom it was subscribed. 
Cox's Life of Melancthon, p. 304. 

t Sylloge Confessionum, p. 127. 



OF THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES. 123 

insert an article expressly on election, unless they thought 
this doctrine an essential addition ? The kind of predesti- 
nation which you describe, as being intended by the seven- 
teenth article of the church, was probably never thought of 
as an article of faith. You say " it has reference to the gen- 
eral election of the church, as the recipient of the covenant 
of grace, and not an allusion to the future state of individu- 
als." Something like this, perhaps, was the opinion of 
Melancthon respecting the scripture account of election, 
and for this reason he passed it over, as having no place in 
a confession of faith. But do you believe a single instance 
can be found, in any formularies of faith, in which the doc- 
trine of election is introduced without alluding to the " fu- 
ture state of individuals ?" That the seventeenth article 
should have been added at all, is only to be explained on 
the supposition, that it was to be understood in the usual 
acceptation of this doctrine, as it was already expressed in 
the well known confessions of Basil, Bohemia, and others. 

I have been led into this historical detail with a view to 
trace the analogy between the sentiments of the English 
reformers, and the plain sense of the articles of the church. 
The Arminian interpreters, aware that the articles as they 
stand are cordially received by the Calvinists, and consider- 
ed as strong supports of their doctrines, are fond of going back 
to the reformers, and modifying the articles by w hat they 
conceive to have been the opinions of their original framers. 
They have never informed us, however, what reasons they 
have for supposing that these persons took pains to write 
ambiguous articles, or to clothe them in a language express- 
ing opinions, which they did not entertain.* The view, 

* Gilpin thinks it probable, that Cranmer in constructing the arti- 
cles was "intentionally ambiguous," and that "he thought it prudent 
on this occasion to use such well timed ambiguity, as might give as 
little offence as possible." Life of Cranmer, p. 155, 156. This 



124 DOCTRINAL CHARACTER 

which has just been taken, must certainly free them from 
any such charge, and leave them at least the merit of con- 
sistency, fairness, and honesty, of which they would be en- 
titled to a very small share, if they did not write as they be- 
lieved, and if their opinions were not calvinistic. We have 
not only their own declarations, but the ample testimony of 
contemporary, and numerous succeeding writers. 

I cannot close these remarks on the articles without no- 
ticing one, which is so uncharitable and unscriptural, that 
it is truly astonishing it should ever have been admitted into 
a system of christian faith. I refer to the eighteenth arti- 
cle, in which it is said, " They also are to be had accursed, 
that presume to say, that every man shall be saved by the 
law or sect which he professeth, so that he be diligent to 
frame his life according to that law, and the light of na- 
ture." Is it, then, the doctrine of the church, that all per- 
sons who lived before Christ, and all who shall live after him, 
without receiving a revelation, and hearing the glad tidings 
of his religion, are to have no part in the promise of salva- 
tion ? Is this just ? If they act according to the law and 
light they possess, what more will a righteous and merciful 
God require ? Had the framers of this article forgotten the 
parable of the talents, and the express language of the 
apostle ? To the Romans, St. Paul writes, " When the 
Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things 
contained in the law, th^se, having not the law, are a law 
unto themselves." ii. 14. This is the law of conscience 

was a singular motive, indeed, to guide a man in forming ar- 
ticles of religion, which were to be the rule of a nation's faith, and 
to which the whole body of the clergy were required by law to sub- 
scribe. Would it not have redounded quite as much to the edifica- 
tion of the church, to let the people follow the perspicuous rules of 
scripture, as to confound them in the dark mazes and ambiguous 
phraseology of mystical divinity ? 



OF THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES. 125 

and reason, and when the man, who has no other law, acts 
in strict conformity to this, what authority have we to say 
that he will not secure the favor of God ? The christian 
will be judged by the law of the gospel ; the heathen, who 
never heard of the gospel, by the law of conscience. " God 
is no respecter of persons, but in every nation, he that fear- 
eth him and worketh righteousness is accepted with him." 
Acts x. 35 The article not only implies, that no individu- 
als of any nation, which has not been visited with the light 
of gospel truth, can be saved ; but declares that they are to 
be had accursed, who even presume to say that they can be 
saved. 

After the examination, which has been made, how can 
the conclusion be resisted, that the sentiments advanced in 
your discourse, respecting the doctrinal character of the 
articles of the English church, are strikingly inconsistent 
with the Church Service, the Homilies, and the plain, nat- 
ural sense of the articles themselves ? If the tenets of the 
reformers were not calvinistic, it will be difficult to prove 
any thing from written testimony ; and it is not manifesting 
much respect for their memory, to charge them with 
writing articles, and teaching doctrines, which did not ac- 
cord with their sentiments. 

It has not been my aim, to attempt a confutation of your 
religious opinions. In many of these I agree with you. It 
is your manner of adapting the articles of the church to your 
opinions with which I am at variance. The system, which 
you pursue, I am persuaded is calculated to deceive the un- 
derstanding, to obscure the truth, and to divert the mind 
from the only proper channel of religious know ledge. If 
report is to be credited, a very large portion of the American 
episcopal church is Armenian. All the members of the 
church, who range themselves in this class, pursue the same 
course of interpretation as yourself. I have had occasion 



126 DOCTRINAL CHARACTER 

to examine the construction, which several writers on this 
side of the question have put on the articles. The convic- 
tion has been perpetually forced on my mind, that the 
writer was not so much inquiring into the actual meaning 
and force of the articles, as devising ingenious ways of turn- 
ing ambiguous phrases to his own account, and in making 
all general expressions have a particular bearing on the 
doctrine he is engaged to support. One cannot but feel, 
that the writer, instead of making the articles his guide, 
takes his own course and compels them to follow. Even 
in the learned and popular work of the bishop of Lincoln, 
this feeling too often obtrudes itself, and in a great measure 
destroys the force of his arguments. If Scott's answer dis- 
covers less learning and good sense, it is nevertheless, as far 
as the doctrines of the church are concerned, full and satis- 
factory. 

Whoever examines this controversy, particularly as it 
has been carried on by the Arminian party, must perceive 
how forcibly it illustrates what has already been said in re- 
gard to the inexpediency of all fixed formularies of faith. 
Why should articles expressed in language not found in 
scripture be retained, when their inevitable tendency is to 
cause dissentions and controversies in the church ? Not 
one Calvinist, we are told, was present at the general con- 
vention of the American Episcopal church, when the arti- 
cles were adopted.* Why then did not this convention 
reject the articles, which are so clearly calvinistic as to re- 
quire volumes of explanations and paraphrases, even to 
show that they are not contradictory to the Arminian 
scheme. This point is the most that is pretended to be 
gained. To prove them favorable to this scheme, would 
require many more volumes. The American church, at 

* How's Vindication, p. 278. Festivals and Fasts, p. 142, Note. 



OF THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES. 127 

least, could have no motives for resorting to " a well timed 
ambiguity" in teaching the doctrines of scripture, however 
such motives might have comported with the " prudence" 
of Cranmer. 

But instead of thinking it possible, that any new light 
could have been attained in two hundred years, and instead 
of acting on the broad principles of gospel liberty, the 
American episcopal convention, in a free country, where no 
man, or body of men, dares encroach on the civil rights 
and privileges of a single individual, determined authorita- 
tively, that no person, who does not believe in the suprem- 
acy of bishops, and who is not ordained by a bishop, can be 
an authorized religious teacher. And, as if to prevent the 
possibility of inquiry, the exercise of private judgment, or a 
free examination of the scriptures among its members, it 
fixed a criterion of christian faith, and a code of spiritual 
laws, to which all persons must conform, who would have 
any part in this true church. These things were done, let 
it be remembered, in a country, which had lately triumphed 
in the cause of political liberty, and thrown off the yoke of 
civil bondage, which it had too much spirit, and too much 
virtuous independence to bear. 

If the members of the convention had actually settled it 
in their minds, that there could be no true church without 
some established formulary in addition to the Bible, they 
might have greatly improved upon the old articles, and 
spared themselves much trouble, by passing a resolution 
somewhat like the following ; — That whereas, we believe 
the Bible to be the word of God, and to contain a revelation 
of his will in every thing essensial to salvation; and where- 
as we believe all men to have a natural right to worship God 
according to the dictates of their own consciences, — we 
agree to make this book the only rule of our faith and 
practice, and to allow r every one individually the privilege 



128 DOCTRINAL CHARACTER 

of studying, and receiving it in that sense, which he sin- 
cerely thinks it conveys. Had the convention substituted 
such a resolution in the place of the articles, it would be no 
longer necessary for a large number of this church to be 
wasting their time in proving their opinions not to be contrary 
to the articles ; but it might be much more profitably em- 
ployed in searching the scriptures to know what opinions 
they ought to receive 

If there happened to be any individuals in the convention 
who had been so long attached to old customs, as to think 
forms of faith an essential part of religion, something like 
the following, for the sake of accommodation, might have 
been adopted. " I believe there is but one God, the Father, 
of whom are all things ." " I believe that Jesus Christ is 
the son of God." 1 believe u that Christ died for our sins 
according to the scriptures." I believe, that u if thou shalt 
confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe 
in thine heart, that God hath raised him from the dead, thou 
shalt be saved ; for with the heart man believeth unto 
righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto 
salvation."* If it were thought important, there could be 
no serious objection to adding something more to this creed, 
taking care always to use the precise language of scripture. 
But if it be absolutely necessary to have a formulary of 
faith, which is not expressed in scripture language, perhaps 
none can be more comprehensive and unexceptionable than 
this, — I believe in all that the scriptures teach. 

* 1 Cor. viii. 6. — Acts viii. 37. — 3 Cor. xv. 3. — Rom. x. 9. 



LETTER V. 



DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY AS HELD BY THE 
EPISCOPAL CHURCH, 



Reverand and dear sir, 

The doctrine contained in the two first articles of the 
church, or what is commonly called the doctrine of the trinity , 
you pass over very slightly ; and yet it may be doubted, 
whether any doctrine of the church stands in more need of 
explanation to make it intelligible or edifying to its members. 
So far as it relates to the divinity of Christ, you acknowl- 
edge it to be of " vital importance," and at the same time, 
declining to consider " the number or force of the objections 
against it," you content yourself with selecting in its sup- 
port a few passages of scripture, as they are contained in 
Jones's work on the Trinity. Should your readers not be 
satisfied with these, you refer them for further information 
to the same source. 

The remainder of what I have to say shall be devoted to 
this subject. I propose first to inquire into the scriptural 
grounds of the doctrine of the Trinity, as it is stated in the 
articles of the church, and in other parts of the Book of 
Common Prayer ; and afterwards to examine the import of 
12 



130 DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY 

the texts you have quoted, as well as of some others, which 
are usually adduced in proof of this doctrine. 

Before I take into consideration the articles above men- 
tioned, I have some remarks to make on those parts of the 
Litany, which are intimately connected with this subject. 
The Litany commences with the following petitions, 
which make a part of every morning service, and are ren- 
dered with an audible voice, both by the minister and 
people. 

u O God, the father of Heaven ; have mercy upon Us mis- 
erable sinners." 

" God, the Son, Redeemer of the world ; have mercy 
upon us miserable sinners." 

" Oh God, the Holy Ghost, proceeding from the Father 
and the Son ; have mercy upon us miserable sinners." 

" Oh holy glorious and blessed Trinity, three persons and 
one God ; have mercy upon us miserable sinners." 

In these petitions, prayer is made separately and distinctly 
to God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Ghost, and 
to the holy Trinity. Here are four distinct objects of wor- 
ship, addressed as different beings, and designated by differ- 
ent characters. How contrary is this to the commands and 
example of our Saviour. His command was, " thou shalt 
worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve." 
He prayed to the Father, and taught his disciples to pray 
to the Father. " At that time Jesus answered and said, I 
thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth" To 
his disciples he said, " After this manner pray ye ; " Our 
Father, which art in heaven." " In that day ye shall ask 
me nothing ; whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in my 
name, he will give it you." u The hour cometh and now 
is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in 
spirit and in truth."* We thus perceive, that our blessed 

* Matth. iv. 10.— xi. 25.-— vi. 9— John xvi 23.— John iv. 23. 



AS HELD BY THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH. 131 

Lord considered the Father the only object of worship. We 
never hear of his worshipping himself, the Holy Ghost, or a 
Trinity. He never informed his disciples of any such ob- 
jects of worhip. 

But what is still more surprising in the worship of the 
church, is, that it is not only addressed to four distinct ob- 
jects, but these objects are respectively called God. A 
petition is first addressed separately and distinctly to 
God the Father ; next, to God the Son ; then, to God the 
Holy Ghost ; and last of all, to the Trinity. Let it be 
observed, that these are not taken collectively, but sepa- 
rately and exclusively. The Trinity differs only from 
the three first in being called a God consisting of three per- 
sons, whereas the others are spoken of as uncompounded 
beings. I do not say that Episcopalians profess to worship 
four Gods, or that in reading the Litany they have in their 
minds four distinct objects of Avorship ; but if they do not, 
it is certain that tbeir sentiments do not accord with the 
language they use. At the best, this kind of language must 
destroy all just conceptions of the one true God, introduce 
confusion into the mind, and call it off from that pure and 
spiritual worship, which the scriptures enjoin. 

When the minister solemnly makes the following petition, 
" Oh God, the Holy Ghost, have mercy upon us miserable 
sinners," and the people respond to it, what ideas can they 
have of this being, Avhom they address as God, but that he 
is a being, who possesses power of himself, independently 
of any other being, to grant their petition. The prayer 
would be unmeaning, if it were not accompanied with such 
ideas. The same may be said of each of the petitions, 
which are presented to the other three beings. Hence they, 
who worship according to the Litany, actually worship four 
beings, each of whom is there called God* 

* Mr. Jones of Nayland, to whose work you refer your readers 
for instruction on the trinity, sajs, " That in the three former peti- 



132 DOCTTINE OF THE TRINITY 

But this is not all. Petition is also made to another be- 
ing, who, although he is not, as each of the four above 
mentioned, distinguished by the title of God, is nevertheless 
addressed as a distinct being. The petition runs as follows, 
u By the mystery of thy holy incarnation ; by thy holy na- 
tivity and circumcision ; by thy baptism, fasting, and temp- 
tation ; by thine agony, and bloody sweat ; by thy cross 
and passion ; by thy precious death and burial, by thy 
glorious resurrection and ascension ; good Lord deliver us." 
Now, to whatever being this prayer may be addressed, it 
cannot be to either of those mentioned above, for they are 
each addressed as God. But God is essentially a spirit, and 
no such properties can be applied to him, as incarnation, 
nativity, circumcision, baptism, fasting, sweat, death and 
burial. The being here addressed, therefore, must be dis- 
tinct from either of the others, and cannot be God. I sup- 
pose you will say it is Christ in his human nature. But 
what is he in his human nature more or less than a man. 
It follows, that if you pray to him in his human nature, 
you pray to him as man. The conclusion of the whole is, 
that, in the Litany, worship is offered to five beings, four of 
whom are respectively called God; and the fifth is address- 
ed under such properties as belong only to a man- 
Such is the result to which it appears to me every one 
will come, who examines the Litany without partiality, 
and who suffers himself to be governed, in judging of its 
meaning, by the principles which usually guide him in as- 
certaining the sense of language. If the words are to be taken 
in their ordinary acceptation, they certainly cannot be receiv- 
ed under any other construction. If you have secret ideas, 

tions the unity in trinity ; in the fourth the trinity inunity is wor- 
shipped."— Cath. Doc. of the Trin. New-York, 1813, p. 178. 
Whether this be a clear and satisfactory explanation of the subject, 
I will leave for others to decide. 



AS HELD BY THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH. 133 

and hidden correspondences attached to them, it will be easy- 
enough to make them mean anything. But that interpreta- 
tion is of a very suspicious character, to say the least, which 
requires such aids to make it consistent or intelligible ; and 
if we are any where to look for perspicuity, and a plain, 
natural use of words, one would suppose it ought to be in 
a settled form of prayer, which makes a part of the divine 
service of every sabbath. If it be said, that my conclusions 
are not just, because no episcopalian imagines himself to 
worship four Gods ; I would reply, that I have not drawn 
these conclusions from any one's opinions, but from the 
language of the Litany itself. It is but reasonable to sup- 
pose, however, that they, who worship in the language of 
this Litany, have corresponding opinions. To intimate the 
contrary would be an implied charge of insincerity, which 
I should be very unwilling to make against any exemplary 
christian. 

I will next proceed to a general consideration of the doc- 
trine of the Trinity, as it is unfolded in the first, second, 
and fifth articles of the church. 

Article i. " There is but one living and true God, ever- 
lasting, without body, parts, or passions ; of infinite power, 
wisdom, and goodness ; the maker and preserver of all 
things both visible and invisible. And in unity of this god- 
head, there be three persons, of one substance, power and eter- 
nity ; the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. 

Art. ii. " The Son, which is the Word of the Father, 
begotten from everlasting of the Father, the very and eternal 
God, of one substance with the Father, took man's nature in 
the womb of the blessed virgin, of her substance ; so that 
two whole and perfect natures, that is to say, the godhead and 
the manhood, were joined together in one person, never to be 
divided, whereof is one Christ, very God, and very man; who 
truly suffered, was crucified, dead, and buried, to reconcile 
12* 



134 DOCTRrNE OF THE TRINITY 

his Father to us, and be a sacrifice, not only for original 
guilt, but also for actual sins of men. 

Art. v. " The Holy Ghost, proceeding from the Father 
and the Son, is of one substance, majes'y, and glory, with the 
Father and the Son, very and eternal God." 

To these articles it may be proper to add what is said on 
the same subject in the Nicene creed, as this is a received 
form in the church service. 

u I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten 
son of God, begotten of his Father before all worlds ; God 
of God, light of light, very God of very God, begotten, not 
made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all 
things were made. 

" I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and giver of life, 
who proceedeth from the Father and Son ; who, with the 
Father and Son together, is worshipped and glorified." 

The first thing which strikes one, on reading these pas- 
sages, is the strangeness of the phraseology. In articles 
purporting to set forth some of the highest and most essen- 
tial doctrines of christian faith, most persons would expect 
to recognize something, which they had seen in the scrip- 
tures. It is a remarkable feature in all the explanations, 
which the church has given of this doctrine, that in scarcely 
a single instance can you find three words together used in 
the same connexion as in the Bible. Take the following 
example. " And in unity of this godhead, there be three 
persons of one substance, power and eternity." This pas- 
sage is not in the scriptures. Separate it into parts, and 
you will be equally unsuccessful in finding them in the word 
of God. Nothing is said there of the unity of the godhead, 
or of any substance, which is composed of three persons. 
Nor can you any where find it expressed in the Bible, that 
Christ " is the very and eternal God, of one substance with 
the Father j" or that " he took upon him man's nature ;" 



AS HELD BY" THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH. 135 

or that in him " were two whole and perfect natures joined 
together in one person." And above all, you cannot find 
in the holy scriptures any language, which bears the remo- 
test resemblance to the unintelligible phraseology, " very 
God and very man," " God of God, light of light, very God 
of very God." There are no such phrases in the Bible, as 
" God the Son," and " God the Holy Ghost ;" and instead 
of any such language as, u holy, blessed, and glorious Trini- 
ty, three persons and one God," the word trinity is not 
found in the scriptures. It is a name for which the apos- 
tles had no occasion.* In short, so far as language is con- 
cerned, it would hardly be possible to conceive a wider de- 
parture from the records of revealed truth, than is found in 
the phraseology, which the church has thought proper to 
employ in defining this doctrine of the trinity. 

Before we proceed any further, it may be well to take a 
short view of the different modes in which English writers, 
and principally those of the church, have explained this 
doctrine. First, the Athanasians, among whom were Dr« 
Waterland, Dr. Taylor, and probably archbishop Seeker, 
from the encomium he passes on the Athanasian Cieed, main- 
tain, that the trinity consists of three distinct, independent, 
and equal persons, constituting one and the same God ; or 
in other words, that " the Father is Almighty, the Son is 
Almighty, the Holy Ghost is Almighty, and yet there are 
not three Almighties, but one Almighty. "| 

*The word trinity was not used till near the close of the second 
century, when it first occurs in the works of Theophilus, bishop of 
Antioch. The terms person and substance were not introduced till 
the third conturj, when they were first used in the Sabellian and 
Noetian controversies. 

t In his thirteenth Lecture on the church Catechism, archbish- 
op Seeker speaks as follows. « Since, then, there is not a plurality 
of Gods ; and yet the Son and Spirit are each of them God, no less 



136 DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY 

Secondly, according to Mr. How's theory, there are three 
distinct, intelligent hypostases, each having a distinct, intel- 
ligent nature, united in some inexplicable manner so as to 
make one God, in somewhat the same way as the corporeal, 
sensitive, and intellectnal faculties are united to form one man. 
Thirdly, Dr. Wallis was an advocate for the Sabellian hypoth- 
esis, and held, that the three persons in the trinity were only 
three modes or relations, which the Deity bears to his crea- 
tures. This, also, was probably the opinion of archbishop 
Tillotson. Fourthly, bishop Pearson supposes the Father to 
be an underived essence, and the Son to have received ev- 
ery thing by communication from God the Father. " There 
can be but one person," says he, " originally of himself sub- 
sisting in that infinite Being, because a plurality of more 
persons so subsisting would necessarily infer a multiplicity 
of Gods." The Son possessed the whole divine nature by 
communication, not by participation, and in such a way, that 
he was as really God as the Father. Bishop Bull and Dr. 
Owen adopted a similar theory.* Fifthly, in the system of 

than the Father ; it plainly follows, that they are, in a manner by 
us inconceivable, so united to him, that these three are one; but 
still, in a manner equally inconceivable ; so distinguished from him, 
that no one of them is the other." Works, vol. vi. p. 126. This is 
indeed inconceivable, that these three beings should be " each of 
them God," and at the same time so united as to be " one," and yet 
'» no one of them to be the other." 

* Bishop Pearson's Exposition of the Creed, Oxford, 1792, vol. i. 
p. 175, 217. The bishop speaks in further illustration of this doc- 
trine somewhat in the language of the Nicene creed and of Augus- 
tin. " The Father is God, but not of God ; light, but not of light ; 
Christ is God, but of God ; light, but of light. There is no differ- 
ence or inequality in the nature or essence, because the same in 
both; but the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ hath that essence of 
himself, from none; Christ hath the same not of himself, but from 



AS HELD BY THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH. 137 

Dr. Thomas Burnet, the Father is a self-existent Being, the 
Son and Spirit are dependent ; but so united, that divine 
perfections and worship may be ascribed to each. Sixthly, 
Mr. Baxter defines the three divine persons to be wisdom, 
power, and love ; and illustrates his meaning by the vital 
power, intellect, and will in the soul of man, and by motion, 
light, and heat in the sun. For this explanation he was in- 
debted to the sharpened wits of the schoolmen. Seventhly , 
bishop Burgess supposes the three persons of the Deity to 
make one God, but does not allow, that these persons are 
three beings, He makes out his position by the following 
syllogism. " The scriptures declare there is only one God. 
The same scriptures declare, that there are three omnipres- 
ent persons ; but there cannot be two omnipresent beings ; 
therefore the three omnipresent persons can be only one 
God." According to this hypothesis the trinity is made up 
of three nonentities. Eighthly, bishop Gastrell says, " the 
three names of God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, must 
denote a threefold difference or distinction belonging to God, 
but such as is consistent with the unity and simplicity of the 
divine nature ; for each of these includes the whole idea of 
God, and something more. So far as they express the na- 
ture of God, they all adequate^ and exactly signify the 
same. It is the additional signification, which makes all the 
distinction between them." According to bishop Gastrell, 
then, " the Father includes the whole idea of God, and 
something more ; the Son includes the whole idea of God 
and something more ; the Holy Ghost includes the whole 
idea of God and something more ; while altogether, the 

him." p. 218. Augustin has it, " Films est de Patre, et quicquid 
est filius, de illo est cujus est Alius ; ideo Dominum Jesum dicimus 
Deum de Deo; Patrem non dicimus Deum de Deo, sed tantum 
Deum ; et dicimus Dominum Jesum lumen de lumine ; Patrem non 
dicimus lumen de lumine, sed tantum lumen." 



138 DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY 

Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost make one entire God, 
and no more."* Ninthly , a scheme, which certainly will vie 
with any other for novelty, is that lately advanced by Mr. 
Heber, in his Bampton Lectures. He has made the marvel- 
lous discovery, that the second and third persons in the 
trinity are no other than the angels Michael and Gabriel. f 
It was the second person, who conversed with Moses from 
Mount Sinai ; and the third person, who constituted the 
Jewish Schekinah. Lastly, I will mention only one scheme 
more, which is that of Dr. Sherlock. I have reserved it till 
the last, because it seems to be in more exact accordance 
with the articles of the church, than either of the others, 
unless it be the Athanasian. He says, " The Father, Son, 
and Holy Ghost, are as really distinct persons, as Peter, 
James, and John ; each of which is God. We must allow 
each person to be a God. These three infinite minds are 
distinguished, just as three created minds are, by self con- 
sciousness. And by mutual consciousness each person has 
the whole wisdom, power, and goodness of the other two. "J 
Such have been the various and contradictory opinions 

* Belsham's Reply to Dr. Moysey, Lond. 1819. p. 32. 

t Heber's Bampton Lectures, preached before the university of 
Oxford, 1815, Lee. iv. p. 211, 228. To clear up this point the lee- 
turer levies most heavily upon the Jewish Rabbis, the Targums, 
the Mahometan doctors, and the ancient Fathers. Appendix to 
Lee. iv. p. 240—250. 

% This was the ground, which Dr. Sherlock took in the celebra- 
ted controversy between him and Dr. South. The latter main- 
tained, that there was only one infinite eternal mind, and three 
somethings, which were not distinct minds, but called by different 
names, as modes, faculties, subsistences. Lind. Apol. p. 63. For 
a more full account of the above statements, see Doddridge's Lec- 
tures, p. vii. prop. 132. Adam's Dictionary of Religions, fourth 
ed. Bost. p. 291. Worcester's Trinitarian Review, No. 1. Reply 
to Dr. Moysey, p. 32, 123. Rees' Cycl. Art. Trin. 



AS HELD BY THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH. 139 

of men, who have subscribed to the articles of the church. 
May it not be thought a little remarkable, that articles, 
which were made for the express purpose of " avoiding di- 
versities of opinion," should have been so unsuccessful in 
this particular ? If it were thought necessary to deviate so 
widely from scripture language, in expressing what was con- 
sidered a most essential doctrine of christian faith, should it 
not have been deemed an object of the very first importance 
to use terms so perspicuous and direct, as to prevent the 
possibility of misapprehending their meaning ? What bene- 
fit can the church derive from articles, which are so vague 
and unintelligible, as to lead its most distinguished members 
into endless controversies, and which may be appealed to, 
with equal confidence, by those who support opinions as 
opposite as light to darkness ! 

But when we examine the account of the trinity, which 
the church has placed at the head of its articles, we can 
hardly be surprised, that its most learned doctors should not 
be able to agree in any particular mode of interpretation. 
How can learning or genius reconcile essential and necessa- 
ry contradictions ? How can they draw rational or intelli- 
gible conclusions from premises, which are at variance with 
the immutable truths of nature ? Had trinitarians always 
been required, at the very outset of their theories, to lay 
down axioms from which they never should depart, and to 
give clear definitions of all the technical terms they were to 
employ, the whole scheme would long ago have disappear- 
ed with the primalities, the essences, and occult qualities 
of the schoolmen. Had they all agreed in attaching some 
clear and distinct ideas to the terms, person, substance, es- 
sence, properties, nature, mode, relation, hypostasis, and 
many others, which have been transplanted from the tech- 
nical theology and absurd metaphysics of the dark ages, this 
controversy about the trinity would have been reduced to an 



140 DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY 

exceedingly narrow compass. When men use words with- 
out any settled meaning, or when different defenders of the 
same theory use the same words in contrary meanings, it 
would be marvellous indeed if they should come to any 
terms of agreement, elicit light in their researches, or 
do much towards advancing the cause of truth. Is it not 
a strong objection against a doctrine, that it cannot be ex- 
pressed in scripture language, nor defined in any language so 
as to be understood ; and that its ablest defenders give con- 
trary explanations of its most important points ? # 

One of the most remarkahle particulars in the doctrine of 
the trinity as received by the church, is the glaring and in- 
evitable contradiction which it contains. In the first place, 
it is said, " there is but one living and true God." This is 
an intelligible proposition. But immediately after, it is ad- 

* The following example will show how unintelligibly, not to 
eay contradictorily, a very learned, and a very great man could talk 
on the trinity. " That there is one divine nature, or essence com- 
mon unto three persons incomprehensibly united and ineffably dis- 
tinguished ; united in essential attributes, distinguished by particu- 
lar idioms and relations ; all equally infinite in every divine perfec- 
tion, each different from the other in order and manner of subsist- 
ence, that there is a mutual inexistence in all, and all in one ; a 
communication without any deprivation or diminution in the com- 
municant; an eternal generation, and an eternal procession, with- 
out precedence or succession, without proper causality or depend- 
ence ; a Father imparting his own, and the Son receiving his Fath- 
er's Life, and a spirit issuing from both, without any division or 
multiplication of essence, — these are notions, which may well puz- 
zle our reason in conceiving how they agree, but should not stag- 
ger our faith in asserting that they be true." Barrow's Sermons, 
vol. ii. p. 423. 

When it is possible for us to believe propositions to which we 
can affix no ideas, and which contain as many contradictions as dis- 
tinct parts, then perhaps we may assent to " these notions " with- 
out " staggering our faith," but not before. 



AS HELD BY THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH. 141 

ded, " there be three persons " in this God. This, in con- 
nexion with the other, is an unintelligible proposition, un- 
less it can be proved by some new kind of logic, that one is 
three. Lest any doubt should remain about the meaning of 
this word person, it is immediately after added, that the 
second person is " very God," and the third, " very and 
eternal God." Here then is a being composed of three 
persons, one of whom is called u the living and true God," 
the other " very God," and the last " very and eternal God," 
and yet these three beings make but one God! Of such a 
doctrine as this, it is no wonder that Dr. South should say, 
" Were it not to be adored as a mystery, it would be explo- 
ded as a contradiction."* By the same course of reasoning 
it might be made out, that a mile is a league, because a 
league consists of three miles ; or you might prove, with 
certain of the ancient fathers, that three men are one man, 
having only a " numerical difference," and agreeing in 
" specific essence."| 

* " That any one should be both father and son to the same per- 
son, produce himself, be cause and effect too, and so the copy give 
being to its original, seems at first sight so very strange and unac- 
countable, that were it not to be adored as a mystery, it would be 
exploded as a contradiction." Soutlfs Sermons, vol. iii. p. 140. 
Lond. 1718. And yet this " strange and unaccountable mystery," 
is what Dr. South labors through a whole sermon to explain. 

t In speaking of the ancient doctrine of Gregory Nyssen, Cyril, 
Maximus the martyr, and others, Cudworth observes, " These the- 
ologers supposed the three persons of their trinity to have really no 
other, than a specific unity or identity ; and because it seems plain- 
ly to follow from hence, that therefore they must needs be as much 
three Gods, as three men are three men; these learned fathers en- 
deavored with their logic to prove, that three men are but abusive- 
ly and improperly so called three, they being really and truly but 
one, because there is but one and the same specific essence or sub- 
stance of human nature in them all." Cudworth*s Intellectual Sys- 
tem, p. 604, Lond. 1678. 
13 



142 DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY 

There is also a very strange contradiction between the 
apostles' creed, and the fifth article of the church. In the 
creed it is said, the " Son was conceived of the Holy Ghost," 
but in the article we are told, that the Holy Ghost proceed- 
eth from the Father and the Son." How these propositions 
are to be reconciled may well occupy the attention of church- 
men, or of any persons, who believe them both to be true. 
The Greek church has been more circumspect, for although 
it admits the Athanasian and Nicene creeds, it affirms that 
the Holy Spirit " is from the Father only, and not from the 
Father and Son," and it has altered the creeds accord- 
ingly * 

In pursuing this examination, I shall endeavor to keep 
as nearly as possible to that kind of trinity, which is to be 
understood from the plain language of the articles, and which 
is defined in fewer words by bishop Sherlock. According 
to this theory, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are as es- 
sentially three distinct beings, as three men are distinct 
beings ; each is as essentially God, as the others ; each has 
the same " substance, power and eternity," as the others ; 
and, consequently, each has independently all the attributes 
of the others. The attributes of the Father are infinite, 
therefore the attributes of the Son and Holy Spirit are infi- 
nite. All the properties and perfections, which belong to 
one, belong in an equal degree to each of the others. What 
you can say of one, you can say of either of the others. 

The kind of trinity, therefore, which the church adopts, 
and to which I shall direct my remarks, may be summed up 
in the following words. 

I. There is one God. 

II. This God consists of three persons, or beings, each 
of whom, separately considered, is as essentially God, as all 
three are when united. 

* New Edinb. Ency. vol. v. p. 742. 



AS HELD BY THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH. 143 

III. Jesus Christ is one of these beings, and "perfect 
God," at the same time he is " perfect man." 

I. The first proposition is one to which all christians, at 
least in words, assent. All sects profess to make the unity 
of God a fundamental doctrine. The testimony of nature 
and of scripture is too strong to be resisted. But this doc- 
trine, which is so simple and obvious in itself, has been so 
much disfigured and obscured as scarcely to be recognized 
amidst the rubbish, which has been collected around it by 
the fancy and prejudices of men. While the Maker of 
heaven and earth continued to be adored, as the one Su- 
preme God, men had a definite and glorious object of wor- 
ship, in whom all their pious affections centered, and to 
whom alone they attributed honor, glory, and dominion. 
But now we are made acquainted with a threefold being. 
The Supreme God is one, yet he is three. He is now a 
" triune God/' and is to be worshipped as " God in trinity, 
and trinity in unity. " Let us see what grounds there are, 
either in the nature of the Supreme Being, or in his reveal- 
ed word, for applying to him such unscriptural names, and 
attributing to him such strange and inconsistent properties. 

1. The unity of God is a simple, indivisible, and perfect 
unity. His essence, substance, or nature, is essentially one. 
It cannot be divided into parts. The essence or substance 
of God, is God himself. His absolute perfection consists in 
his being one, independently of all things else. The mo- 
ment you conceive him to be divided into parts, you destroy 
his character as God. But unless he be supposed to be sep- 
arated into parts, how can he be said to exist in three per- 
sons ? Or how can the word three be applied to him in any 
sense ? What idea could be formed of such a being ? Not 
that he is one, but three. His unity would be destroyed.* 



* Deus cum summum magnum sit recte Veritas nostra pronun- 
ciavit, Deus si non unus est, non est. Non quasi dubitemus esse 



144 DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY 

2. Again, the attributes of the Deity are infinite. He has 
infinite power, knowledge, and wisdom. If there were 
more than one such being, neither of them could be the Su- 
preme Being. God could not be the only omniscient being, 
if any other knew as much as he ; nor could he be the only 
omnipotent being, if any other had as much power. If the 
Son and Holy Spirit be each " very God,'' they must have 
the perfect attributes of God, and be in all respects equal. 
In such case, there would indeed be three Gods, but not one 
Supreme God. 

3. The great doctrine of the unity of God is, also, one 
of the most prominent in the scriptures. The first truth, 
which Moses delivered to the Israelites, on giving them the 
law, was, " Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord." 
This was repeated by our Saviour to the scribe, who re- 
plied, " there is one God, and there is none other but he." 
Mark xii. 29, 32. " The Lord he is God, and there is 
none else besides him." Deut. iv. 35. " I am God, and 
there is none else ; I am God, and there is none like me." 
Isai. xlvi. 9. " Unto us there is but one God, the Father, 
of whom are all things." 1 Cor. viii. 6. It is unnecessary 
to select other passages. No truth is more constantly urged, 
than the unity and supremacy of God. 

II. My next inquiry shall be, whether Christ was this 
Supreme God. If so wonderful a fact as this be contained 
in the scriptures, we must expect to find it expressed in the 
most unequivocal and positive terms. To render it possi- 

Deum, dicendo, si non unus, non est Deus ; sed quia, quera confi- 
dimus esse, idem definiamus esse, quod si non est, Deus non est, 
suramum scilicet magnum. Porro, summum magnum unicum sit 
necesse est, ergo et Deus unicus erit, non aliter Deus, nisi sum- 
mum magnum, nee aliter summum magnum, nisi parem non ha- 
tens, nee aliter parem non habens, nisi unicus fuerit. Tertul. adv. 
Marcion. lib. i. c. 3. Vid. Pearson on the Creed, vol. ii. p. 21. 



AS HELD BY THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH. 145 

ble, that a being who was born, who had the feelings, affec- 
tions, and passions of a man, who felt the pains of hunger 
and thirst, who was affected with joy and grief, was subject 
to bodily and mental sufferings, and at length died, — to ren- 
der it possible, that such a being could be the eternal God, 
requires a weight of evidence, in comparison with which, 
the united testimony of every human being since the world 
began would be nothing, without a full, express, and posi- 
tive revelation from God himself. It is not a doctrine, 
which any one should venture to collect from hints and al- 
lusions, or to build up from a few doubtful passages of scrip- 
ture. If it be a truth, it must be written in characters 
which cannot be mistaken, and shine forth as the most con- 
spicuous object in every part of the word of God. 

In discussing this question we can appeal to no higher 
authority, than that of our Saviour himself. Let us see if 
we can infer from his own language, that he was the Su- 
preme God. 

1. To those who were disposed to kill him for healing the 
sick man on the sabbath day, he said, " As the Father hath 
life in himself, so hath he given to the Son to have 
life in himself; and hath given him authority to ex- 
ecute judgment, also, because he is the Son of Man." John 
v. 26, 27. Do you understand from this, that the same 
being, who gave life and authority, was the being himself, 
who received them ? Were the giver and receiver the 
same ? 

2. Again, " My meat is to do the will of him, that sent 
me, and to finish his work." John iv. 34. " I seek not 
mine own will, but the will of the Father, which hath 
sent mc" v. 30. " My doctrine is not mine, but his that 
sent me." vii. 16. "I have not spoken of myself, but the 
Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment what I 
should say, and what I should speak." xii. 49. " I pro- 

13* 



146 DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY 

ceeded forth and came from God ; neither came I of myself, 
but he sent me." viii. 42. Here Christ explicitly declares 
in several places, that he was sent by the Father. Would 
this language be intelligible if Christ were God ? • He came 
not to do his own will*, but the will of the Father. In what 
terms can you more clearly define two distinct beings, than 
by attributing to them two wills ? When he says, " my 
doctrine is not mine,' 5 are we to understand directly the 
contrary, that it was his ? When he says " he came from 
God," does he mean that he came from himself? If the 
notion had prevailed in the days of our Saviour, that he was 
God, and it had been his special purpose to confute such an 
error, it were difficult to conceive how he could use strong- 
er language than what is contained in these passages. He 
says, again, u my Father is greater than I," John xiv. 28, 
from which it certainly does not follow, that he and the 
Father are the same. When our Lord told his disciples, 
that " he came forth from the Father," and they replied, 
u we believe, that thou earnest forth from God,"* did they 
mean, that they believed him to be God, and that he came 
forth from himself ? And what would be the meaning of 
the passage, " he shall know my doctrine, whether it be of 
God, or whether I speak of myself,"! if God and himself 
were the same being ? 

3. As the Lord Jesus was not God, so he did not in him- 
self possess the attributes of God. He uniformly ascribed 
all power, knowledge, goodness, and wisdom to the Father, 
and repeatedly affirmed, that he derived every thing from 
the Father. 

God is omnipotent, and needs no aid from any other being. 
But Jesus declares, " I can of mine own self do nothing." 
John v. 30. " The Father, that dwelleth in me, he doth 

* John xvi. 30. t John vii. 17. 



AS HELD EY THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH. 147 

the works.'''' xiv. 10. u The Son can do nothing of himself, 
but what he seeth the Father do." v. 19. In the discour- 
ses from which these texts are taken, it seems to be his 
whole design to convince the people, that the miracles and 
wonderful works, which they had seen him perform, were 
not done by any power of his own, but entirely by the 
power, which he had received from God. There is no rea- 
son why he should wish the people to be deceived on this 
point. If he had done these works by his own power, 
why should he refer them to another ? This would be de- 
tracting from the weight of his own character, and would 
tend rather to defeat, than strengthen his purpose of estab- 
lishing his divine authority. If, as he says, he could not 
do these things without aid from God, it is evident he did 
not possess the same power as God. 

4. Again, God is omniscient. Every thing is known to 
him from the beginning to the end. But the Lord Jesus 
expressly declares, that he has not a knowledge of all fu- 
ture events. " As my Father hath taught me, I speak these 
things." John viii. 28. If he had known all things from 
the beginning, he could not be taught. Whatever is learnt 
from a teacher is something, which was not befoie known. 
After having described many of the signs and wonders, 
which should precede the destruction of Jerusalem, or as it 
is thought by many, the day of judgment, he concludes, 
" But of that day, and that hour knoweth no man, no, not 
the angels, which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the 
Father only." Mark xiii. 32. Here is a positive declara- 
tion on the part of our Saviour, that he did not know what 
the Father knew. His knowledge was limited ; finite and 
not infinite ; not the knowledge of God, but of a subordi- 
nate being. 

5. At another time, when one called him " Good Mas- 
ter," he replied, " Why callest thou me good ? There is 



148 DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY 

none good but one, that is God." Matt. xix. 17. Two 
things are evident in this reply ; first, that he represented 
himself as a distinct being from God ; and secondly, that he 
did not possess the same degree of goodness. It is not im- 
portant to inquire in how high a degree this attribute exist- 
ed in him. It is enough, that he acknowledges it to be im- 
perfect, and inferior to the goodness of God. The one is 
infinite, the other limited. 

6. St. Luke bears testimony, that " Jesus increased in 
wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and man." ii. 
52. How could he increase in wisdom, if he were God, 
and had originally all wisdom ? How could he increase in 
favor with God, if he had from the beginning all the divine 
perfections ? The wisdom of God is perfect. According 
to the scriptures, the wisdom of Christ was imperfect.* 

We have, thus seen from the scriptures, and mostly from 
our Saviour's own words, that he was not the one true God, 
and that the attributes, which constitute the perfection of 
the divine nature, were possessed by him in a limited and 
inferior degree. 

He was a derived being, because he came forth from the 
Father, and received all kngwledge and power from him. 

He was a subordinate being, because he did nothing of 
himself, but obeyed the will of the Father. 

* Theodore of Mopsuetia maintained, that Christ had two souls, 
one distinct from the Word. This he said was necessary to ac- 
count for many of his actions. According to him, it was not the 
divine Word, which increased in wisdom and suffered ; but the 
other soul of Christ. Butler's Horae Biblicee, p. 210. 

Theodore, bishop of Pharan, and Sergius held, that although 
Christ had tioo natures, he had but one will. This opinion was call- 
ed a heresy, and condemned in the council at Rome, A. D. 849. 
Ibid. p. 211. 



AS HELD BY THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH. 149 

Tt is j nevertheless, the doctrine of the church, that he is 
" God of God, very God of very God." 

III. I am aware that the church has a way of getting 
over all these difficulties, and still maintaining that the Lord 
Jesus is God. They, who believe in the doctrine of the 
trinity, have a never failing expedient, to which they resort 
with equal success in every emergency, — a sort of magical 
key, which unlocks with equal ease all the entrances to the 
difficult parts of scripture. It has been decreed by cou n- 
cils, and settled by convocations of bishops, and other di- 
vines, " that two whole and perfect natures, that is to say, 
the godhead and manhood, were joined together in one per- 
son, never to be divided, whereof is one Christ, very God 
and very man." As this scheme of two natures is the 
chain which holds the trinity together, I hope it will not 
be thought amiss, if I stop to examine it w r ith some care. 

1. It cannot be deemed an impertinent question for me 
first to ask, what proof is found in the scripture of such a 
doctrine ? This is the only test by which we ought to 
abide. I have never been able to find a single passage in 
which our Saviour, or his apostles, or any other persons 
speak of these two natures. In all the discourses of Jesus 
to his disciples and to the people, he never once intimated 
that he was two beings, and spoke sometimes in the charac- 
ter of one, and sometimes in the character of the other. If 
he actually possessed two natures, why should he not make 
it known ? How could the people tell when he spoke as 
God, and when as man ; and what could prevent their be- 
ing perpetually deceived ? To have made his instructions 
intelligible, or productive of any profit to his hearers, it 
would have been necessary on every occasion to tell them 
in what character he was speaking. But so far from this, 
he always spake of himself as one person, and never once 
intimated, that he had more than one character or nature. 



150 DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY 

2. By this scheme of two natures, trinitarians explain 
without difficulty all the words of Christ. They take upon 
themselves to judge, when he speaks as God, and when he 
speaks as man. For instance, when he says, "not my will, 
but thine be done," they say he speaks as man. That is, 
the part of him which is man, addresses the part of him, 
which is God. They do not recollect, that this is making 
two wills in him, and one opposed to the other. What idea 
can you form of a being, who has two opposite wills ? 
What more clearly designates a distinct being, than a dis- 
tinct will ? If Christ had not such a will, how can he in 
any sense be called one being, or " one Christ ?" If he had 
such a will, how can he be called two ? 

3. Let those, who believe in this double character of 
Christ, answer the questions, u to which of these beings St. 
Paul alludes in the phrase, i Our Lord Jesus Christ V Are 
we to understand here the l very God,' or 6 very man ?' 
Does it require two distinct beings for the c one Lord Jesus 
Christ, by whom are all things ?> Have we two distinct 
beings for the ' one mediator between God and men ?' Have 
we two distinct beings for the one ' head over all things to 
the church P Do these two distinct beings constitute the 
one person, who is seated at the right hand of God ?"* 
Every one should be able to give rational answers to these 
questions, and find some direct testimony in the scripture 
for this singular doctrine, before he allows it his assent. 

4. As this scheme of a double nature is not supported by 
any positive scriptural evidence, and is extremely repugnant 
to every dictate of the understanding, it may be well to 
trace out some of the consequences of admitting such an 
expedient, as a guide in the interpretation of the revealed 
word of God. In the first place, it makes the language of 

* See Worcester's Trinitarian Review, No. 3. p. 95. 



AS HELD BY THE EPSICOPAL CHURCH. 151 

Christ in many instances inconsistent with veracity. It 
causes him to say, that he could not do, what he could do. 
If he were the supreme God, and had infinite power, he 
could do all things. To say that he " could do nothing of 
himself," would not be true, in whatever nature he might 
say it. For if he were God, he could of himself do every 
thing ; otherwise the human nature might control the di- 
vine, which I suppose no one will allow. He could never 
have a deficiency of power in any one nature, if he were 
God in any other. 

5. Smiliar remarks may made be in regard to the passage in 
which he tells his disciples, that he did not know the 
time when those dreadful calamities, which he had been 
describing, would happen. They must have been eager to 
know at what period these direful predictions were to be 
accomplished. Yet he told them he did not know. But if 
he were the supreme God, he knew all things, and must 
have known " the day and the hour" perfectly well. Nor 
could he know a thing as God, and not know it as man. 
He could not know a thing, and be ignorant of it at the same 
time. How then if he were God, could it be true for him 
to tell his disciples, that he did not know the time when 
his predictions would come to pass ? 

6. These two beings, or natures, although they make 
one person, have properties totally inconsistent with each 
other. This compound person has all the perfections of 
God and all the imperfections of man. It is infinite and 
finite ; possessing all power, and yet dependant ; knowing 
all things, yet limited in knowledge ; immutable, yet sub- 
ject to perpetual change ; incapable of suffering, and yet 
feeling the pains and calamities incident to human life ; 
mortal, and yet immortal. All this, to be sure, is absurd 



152 DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY. 

and impossible ; but it is a necessaiy inference from this 
doctrine of two natures in one person. 

7. To interpret the scriptures by this scheme, would 
also introduce the greatest confusion and uncertainty. You 
may assign any meaning you choose to almost every word, 
which Jesus spoke concerning himself, or which the apos- 
tles wrote about him, and another may give, with equal 
authority, a directly contrary meaning. One may say he 
speaks as God, and another he speaks as man in the same 
place. Each may quote the same words to prove opposite 
positions, and they will apply equally as well to a false as 
a true argument. No combination of words, which Jesus 
could have used, would prove him not to be God. Sup- 
pose he had said in plain terms in every discourse he ut- 
tered, / am not God ; and suppose the same had been often 
repeated by his apostles, it would prove nothing. We 
should be told, that he spoke it as man. Is it not obvious, 
that such a system of interpretation as this would make the 
most important parts of scripture, not only unintelligible, 
but contradictory ? In what respect does it differ from the 
cabalism of the Jews, or the esoteric doctrines of the mystical 
philosophy ? The Jews pretended, that they had a written 
and an oral law, a vicible and an invisible. The words of 
Moses were mere symbols of a recondite meaning. The 
hidden sense was always considered the true one, although 
it often happened, that this was contrary to the visible sense. 
So it is with this mystical doctrine of two natures. The 
common use of words is laid aside. The visible is made to 
give way to the invisible ; the plain sense of language is 
sacrificed to a hidden sense. Such a principle must destroy 
all certainty in the scriptures, and involve the inquirer in 
endless perplexites and confusion. Yet such is the princi- 
ple, by which the fabric of the trinity is held together. 

8. Moreover, this doctrine of two natures, when carried 



AS HELD BY THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH. 153 

to its full extent, will tend just as strongly to prove the Son 
inferior, as equal to the Father. You can prove, that he is 
not God, and does not possess the divine attributes, by the 
same course of reasoning, which you employ to prove, that 
he is God. Since his two natures are essentially united in 
one, to make the u one Lord Jesus Christ," you may deny 
of him absolutely Avhat does not belong to him in both na- 
tures. When he says, indefinitely, that he does not possess 
all power, all knowledge, all goodness, without intimating 
that he speaks of himself in any other character than the 
"one person," or " one Christ ;" what else can he mean, 
except that in this character he is limited in these attributes? 
Now in this character he is essentially 07ie, and " never to 
be divided ;" and in this character, if in any, he is God, or 
as bishop Sherlock expresses it, " a God." But God is 
perfect. The " one Christ," in his most absolute character, 
is imperfect, and therefore cannot be God. 

9. In every attempt to prove this doctrine, Christ must 
be considered as always having spoken With a mental reser- 
vation, — saying one thing and meaning another. You are 
not to interpret his words from what he said, but from what 
he retained behind, and did not think proper to express. 
Suppose this were to be made a principle in writing and con- 
versation ; where would be truth, knowledge, or any thing 
else, which could promote the virtue, order, and happiness 
of society ? There could be no language, which might not 
be perverted. Suppose a believer in the two natures were 
to repeat the Apostles' creed in the manner of speaking, 
which is attributed to our Saviour. He might deny every 
article, which relates to Christ, and still insist that he re- 
cites it correctly. He might say, " Jesus Christ was not 
born of the Virgin Mary ; did not suffer under Pontius Pi- 
late ; was not crucified, dead, and buried ; did not rise from 
the dead on the third daj T ; did not ascend up into heaven." 
14 



154 DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY 

If he were to repeat the creed with these negatives, his 
language would be strictly correct, although he might firmly 
believe every word of the creed, as it stands in the Book of 
Common Prayer. He has only taken the liberty of mental 
reservation. If you were to tell him, that he had denied 
some of the positive declarations, and most important doc- 
trines of scripture, he would reply, this is a mistake ; I had 
in mind the divine nature of Christ, which could neither be 
born, suffer, nor die. # 

10. I will not pursue the consequences any farther. Ev- 
ery one must see to what contradictions and confusion they 
lead. That a principle of interpretation, which will admit 
of such consequences, should ever have been resorted to, 
can only be accounted for by its being a necessary support 
of the trinity. A doctrine, which does so much violence 
to the understanding, as this scheme of two natures, and 
which is not even countenanced by a single direct allusion 
in the scriptures,— such a doctrine could not have been in- 
vented, except as a necessary expedient. When the no- 
tion began to prevail, that there were three beings, each 
possessing equal perfections, or in other words,, each equally 
God, so many passages started forth, in every page of the 
New Testament, to prove the subordinate and dependant 
character of Christ, that this scheme readily suggested it- 
self as the only possible one, which could give the least 
semblance of consistency to a doctrine apparently so irra- 
tional and so unscriptural as the trinity. To preserve con- 
sistency in this doctrine, another was devised no less incon- 
sistent, irrational, and unscriptural. 

IV. We have thus seen that Jesus Christ was not the 
one true God, but a subordinate being. We are next to in- 
quire whether the Holy Spirit be the one true God, Ac- 

* For some forcible remarks on this subject of two natures* see 
Emlyn's Works, v. i. p. 98—105. 



AS HELD BY THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH. 155 

cording to the fifth article of the church, " The Holy Ghost 
proceeding from the Father and the Son, is of one substance, 
majesty, and glory with the Father and the Son, very and 
eternal God." In most cases, one being proceeding from 
another would denote a difference in those two beings. 
Here the Holy Spirit is said not only to be of owe substance 
w r ith the Father and the Son, but to be itself the " very 
God," from whom it proceeds. Such a mystery as this, it 
must be allowed, is not to be understood. I shall neither 
attempt to conceive, nor explain the doctrine of procession, 
but shall confine myself to the inquiry, whether the Holy 
Spirit be a distinct being, and be at the same time sepa- 
rately considered the " eternal God," and the " one Lord 
Jesus Christ." 

1. If the Holy Spirit be God, it must be self-existent 
and independent. The fifth article, and the INicene creed 
say, it proceeds from the Father and Son." It cannot, 
therefore, have had existence originally in itself; and if it 
be a distinct being, it must, according to the article and 
creed, be derived and dependant, and consequently not 
God. 

2. There can be little doubt, that the phrase Holy Ghost, 
or Hoi}' Spirit, is often used in the sacred writings synony- 
mously with God. In such cases it is simply a name of the 
Supreme Being. This use of the phrase is very rational. 
What is the Holy Spirit, but the spirit of God, and what is 
the Spirit of God, but God himself ? It is not a "substance," 
which has proceeded from the Father. It is in reality 
God. When Elihu, one of Job's friends, said, " The Spirit 
of God made me,"* what could he mean, but that God 
made him ? When the Psalmist exclaims, " Whither shall 
I go from thy Spirit ,""[ what else is it but to say, " whither 

* Job xxxiii. 4. t Psalm cxxxix. 7. 



156 DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY 

shall I go from thee ?" When Peter reprimanded Ananias 
and Sapphira for concealing a part of their goods, he asked 
them, " How is it that ye have agreed together to tempt the 
Spirit of the LordV Acts v. 9. On another occasion the 
same apostle said to those, who wished to make the Mosaic 
institutions binding on the christian converts, " Now, there- 
fore, why tempt ye GodV Acts xv. 10. In both these pas- 
sages it is evident the object tempted was the same. It is 
a common phraseology with the prophets, " Thus saith the 
Lord," " Thus saith the God of Israel," "Jehovah saith." 
The same phraseology is used in different parts of the scrip- 
tures in relation to the Holy Spirit. When Agabus predicted 
the disasters, which would happen to St. Paul at Jerusalem, 
he commenced as follows ; " Thus saith the Holy Spirit," 
Acts xxi. 2. In writing to the Hebrews the apostle uses 
nearly the same expression, " Wherefore, as the Holy Spirit 
saith, to day, if ye will hear my voice." iii. 10. From 
these examples it appears, that the names Holy Spirit, God, 
Lord, Jehovah, were used promiscuously to denote the Su- 
preme Being. WTien actions, or words, or thoughts, are 
attributed to the Holy Spirit, it is the same thing as attri- 
buting them to God. Any arguments drawn from these to 
prove, that the Holy Spirit is a distinct being from God, 
would be equally strong to prove, that Jehovah and God are 
two distinct beings. 

3. Another use of the term, Holy Spirit, and this much the 
most extensive one, is when it denotes certain powers, gifts, 
or influences communicated to any person in a supernatural 
degree. These are derived wholly from God. The Being, 
who could originally form the mind, and endow it with such 
high and varied powers as it naturally possesses, can modify 
these powers, add to their strength, or influence their action. 
When this has been done in such a way as to produce visi- 
ble effects, it has been called the operation of his spirit, or 



AS HELD BY THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH. 157 

of the Holy Spirit. These powers were abundatly granted 
to the prophets of old, and in them they were called the 
gift of prophecy. By these supernatural powers, which 
were given to him without measure, our Saviour was ena- 
bled to perform miracles, to foretell future events, and to do 
all the wonderful works which marked the acts of his life, 
and which confirmed the truth of his doctrines. Jesus is 
often represented as being influenced, or guided by this 
spirit. The spirit of God " descended upon him at his bap- 
tism." u Jesus being full of the Holy Spirit returned from 
Jordan." Luke iv. 1. " And Jesus returned in the power 
of the spirit into Galilee." v. 14. He spoke of performing 
miracles " by the spirit of God." Matth- xii. 28. What 
else are we to understand by these passages, but that God 
bestowed on him extraordinary powers, by which he was 
enabled to exhibit proofs of his divine commission ? This 
fact is also an argument against the notion of two natures ; 
for if he were himself God, why should it be constantly re- 
peated, that he received aid from any other source ? By the 
same miraculous powers, enjoyed in a less degree, the apos- 
tles were qualified for promulgating the true religion, by con- 
vincing the world that Jesus was Christ, and that his religion 
was from God. 

4. In no instance, where the phrase Holy Spirit is used to 
signify these powers, can it be made to be a title of the Su- 
preme Being. It can never be called " very and eternal 
God." I have room for very few examples, but will endea- 
vor to select some of the more prominent. The apostle 
writes thus to the Corinthians ; " Know ye not that ye are 
the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dicelieth in 
you ?" 1 Cor. iii. 16. " That good thing, which was com- 
mitted unto thee, keep by the Holy Spirit which dwelleth in 
us." 2 Tim. 14. In neither of these passages can we sup- 
pose the word spirit to stand for a person, or being. The 
14* 



158 DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY 

most it can imply, is an affection of the mind. St. Paul 
speaks " of the Holy Spirit, which God shed on us abun- 
dantly." Tit. iii. 6. Again, " on the Gentiles, also, was 
poured out the gift of the Holy Spirit." Acts x. 45. Now 
these are characteristics of the Holy Spirit, which it could 
never have, if it were a person or a distinct being. How 
can God pour out, or shed on us this Spirit in any other 
way, than by influencing our minds and leading us to good 
purposes ? 

5. John the baptist, in speaking of the Lord Jesus, said, 
" God giveth not the Spirit by measure unto him." John 
iii. 34. " Hereby know we, that we dwell in him, and he 
in us, because he hath given us of his Spirit." 1 John iv. 13. 
" Ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." Acts ii. 38. 
" Then laid they their hands on them, and they received 
the Holy Spirit." viii. 17. Instances are frequent in which 
the Holy Spirit is said to have been given and received. But 
what sense will these passages make, if you use them with 
reference to a, person ox being, or to the "eternal God ?" Men 
may receive divine powers, they may have the powers, 
which they already possess, enlarged to an indefinite degree, 
they may receive such qualities as will strengthen the vir- 
tuous principles, and improve the disposition and temper ; 
and this is the only way in which they can be said to re- 
ceive the Holy Spirit. Barnabas is described as a u good 
man, and full of the Holy Spirit and faith." Acts xi. 24. It 
is often said of different persons, that they were filled with 
the Holy Spirit. This use of the phrase surely denotes 
qualities of the mind, and not a " person of the godhead." 
How can you say that any one is filled with a person ? 

6. There is a remarkable passage in Isaiah, which corres- 
ponds with the above significations of the Holy Spirit in the 
New Testament. " And there shall come forth a rod out of 
the stem of Jesse, and a branch shall grow out of his roots ; 



AS HELD BY THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH. 159 

and the Spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him, the spirit of 
wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, 
the spirit of knowledge, and of the fear of the Lord.'' 7 xi. 1,2. 
This was spoken with a direct allusion to the Messiah, and 
represents the spirit of the Lord in him to be wisdom, pow- 
er and knowledge ; — the same kind of spirit, which was 
miraculously communicated in different measures to the apos- 
tles, and many of the primitive christians. 

7. Another use of the phrase Holy Spirit is when it is 
personified, or denotes personal qualities. There are many 
instances in the sacred writings, in which the qualities of a 
person are attributed to abstract terms. The law is repre- 
sented as speaking, and the scriptures as foreseeing and 
preaching ; sin is spoken of as deceiving and killing ; and of 
charity it is said that it " suffereth long, and is kind ; it en- 
vieth not, vaunteth not itself," &c* In these several pas- 
sages the laio, sin, scripture, and charity are personified. In 
the same way the Holy Spirit, or the supernatural influence 
which it designates, is sometime personified. The following 
are examples. " For it is not ye that speak, but the spirit 
of your Father which speaketh in you." Matt. x. 20. "It 
is not ye that speak, but the Holy Spirit." Mark xiii. 11. 
" The Holy Spirit shall teach you in the same hour what ye 
ought to say." Luke xii. 12. Here the Spirit, or the di- 
vine influence, is said to speak, and teach, in the same man- 
ner as the law and the scripture, in the places above men- 
tioned, are said to speak and preach. 

8. The Holy Spirit is sometimes personified under the 
name of the comforter. " I will pray the Father, and he 
shall give you another comforter, that he may abide with 
you for ever, even the spirit of truth." John xiv. 16. " But 
the Comforter, which is the Holy Spirit, whom the Father 

* Rom. iii. 19. — Gal. iii. 8. — Rom. vii. 11. — 1 Cor. xiii. 4. 



160 DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY 

will send in my name, he shall teach you all things." v. 25. 
It is to be observed in the first of these passages, that this 
comforter was to be given by the Father ; and in the other, 
that it was to be sent by him. It is hence evident, that if 
it were actually a person, it could not be the same God, 
being, or person, by whom it was given or sent. It must 
be a derived, and inferior person, and therefore not the 
" eternal God," mentioned in the fifth article of the church. 
The Lord Jesus, in speaking to his disciples of his separa- 
tion from them, says, u It is expedient for you, that I go 
away, for if I go not away, the comforter will not come unto 
you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you. — Howbeit 
when he, the spirit of truth is come, he will guide you 
into all truth ; for he shall not speak of himself ; but whatso- 
ever he shall hear, that shall he speak." John xvi. 7, 13. 
From these texts it appears, that this comforter was inferi- 
or to Christ, for it was to be sent by him ; and that it was 
not to speak of itself but only as it w r as instructed. Now 
this could not be true of God, nor a person, which was 
equal with God. All those passages, in which personal 
qualities are attributed to the Holy Spirit, will be perfectly 
unintelligible, if you consider the Spirit to be the " eternal 
God," or to have a substance, person, or being, the same as 
God. But if you explain them as you do other passages, 
which contain personifications of different attributes or quali- 
ties, the sense will be clear, and consistent with all the va- 
rious uses of the phrase Holy Spirit in other parts of the 
scriptures. 

9. In the eighth chapter of Proverbs is a remarkable per- 
sonification of wisdom. It may be doubted whether the 
whole scripture affords so strong evidence of the personality 
of the Holy Spirit, as this chapter gives of the personality of 
wisdom. " I, Wisdom, dwell with Prudence — I love them 
that love me — I was set up from everlasting, from the be- 



AS HELD BY THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH. 161 

ginning, or ever the earth was. When there were no depths, 
before the mountains were settled, before the hills, was I 
brought forth." viii. 12, 17, 23, 24, 25. The whole chap- 
ter is spoken in the person of Wisdom, who is represented 
to have been with God from eternity, and to have aided 
him in the work of creation- Yet no one, I suppose, will 
argue that wisdom has a distinct prersonality, and has ex- 
isted in this character from eternity. Why then should any 
one draw this conclusion, from a weaker evidence, in regard 
to the Holy Spirit ? 

10. The reasons why the Holy Spirit cannot be considered 
as God, or a distinct being, person, or substance, may be 
expressed in a few words, as follows. It is no where in the 
scriptures called God, nor is it ever made an object of wor- 
ship. Many things are attributed to it, which cannot be 
applied to a divine person, or to any person. It was given 
by measure, or in degrees ; it was shed forth, poured out, 
and given in double portions ; persons were said to drink 
into it ; it was quenched, and taken away ; it could not speak 
of itself, except what it should hear ; it did not know the 
Son or the Father, for Christ says " no one knoweth the 
Son but the Father, neither knoweth any one the Father, 
save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son shall reveal 
him." Matt, xi.27. But if the Holy Spirit had been of "one 
substance with the Father and Son," it would of itself have 
known them both. 

11. It may further be added, if Christ and the Ho]y Spirit 
be each of them " very and eternal God," then each must 
have the same properties, and be capable of exercising them 
in the same way. What you can affirm of one, you can 
affirm of the other, as also of the Father. You might 
with as much propriety say, " the Holy Spirit shall send the 
Father or Son," as that the Father or Son " shall send the 



162 DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY 

Holy Spirit." As they are equal " in power and majesty," 
so their authority one over the other must be equal. 

12. It is the doctrine of the articles, also, that thes e 
three persons are actually one being, though I know not how 
such a thing can be conceived. Let it be taken for granted, 
that such is the fact, and what will be the consequence ? It 
will be, that all the actions, which are attributed to any one 
of them, may be attributed to either of the others. If the 
Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit be synonymous terms 
for the same being, these terms may in any place be substi- 
tuted one for the other, in the same way as Lord, God, and 
Jehovah may be used promiscuous!} 7 to signify the Supreme 
Being; and Jesus, Saviour, Redeemer, to siguify the Son. 
By applying this rule in a few instances, we shall see to 
what results the doctrine of the trinity, as embraced by the 
church, will bring us. 

Rom. v. 10. "If when we were enemies, we were reconci- 
led to God by the death of his Son." Now if God and the 
Holy Spirit be each the same being as the Son, it will be 
strictly correct to substitute either of these names in the 
above passage. It will then read, " we were reconciled to 
God by the death of God;" or, " we were reconciled to 
God by the death of the Holy Sgirit. v 

1 John iv. 13. " Herein is love, not that we loved God, 
but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation 
for our sins." By substituting the synonymous terms, this 
will read, u he sent the Holy Spirit, or he sent himself, or he 
sent God, to be a propitiation for our sins. 

Rom. viii. 34. " It is Christ that died." " It is God that 
died." " It is the Holy Spirit that died." 

These examales are sufficient. If we may believe the 
church, when it says, that Christ was " one person, never 
to be divided," the same application may be made to all the 
events of his life. When he says, 7, myself, me, you may 



AS HELD BY THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH. 163 

substitute either of the names God, or Holy Spirit. But if we 
believe what the church asserts in the same place, that this 
person, instead of never being divided, is actually separated 
into two parts, or " natures," then we must ascertain which 
nature it is that speaks, or acts, before we can make the 
substitution. 

13. It is proper here to observe, that the Holy Spirit was 
not called God till more than three hundred years after the 
time of the apostles. " It was first decreed in the council 
of Constantinople, A D. 381, that the Holy Spirit was 
Lord, — neither did the ancients address prayers to the 
Holy Spirit ; and they assigned this as their reason ; viz. 
That a gift was not to be asked of a gift, but of the giver 
of the gift."* The following are the words of Eras- 
mus, in his Annotations on the first epistle to the Cor- 
inthians. u No one of the ancients ventured plainly 
to assert, that the Holy Spirit was of the same substance 
with the Father and the Son, not even when the ques- 
tion concerning the Son was every where discussed with 
so much warmth. But now we scruple not to declare, 
that the Holy Spirit is of one substance with the Father and 
the Son, very God, of the Father very God, and of the Son 
very God." In his Preface to Hilary he states the same 
thing, and in the whole twelve books, which this latter 
author wrote on the trinity, he never mentions the Holy 
Spirit as God.| He wrote about the middle of the fourth 
century. Ought we not to be a little surprised at finding a 
doctrine now insisted upon, as a fundamental article of re- 
ligion, which was not known in any church till nearly four 
hundred years after the time of our Saviour ? 

* Racovian Catechism, translated by Thomas Rees, p. 293, note 
by B. Wissowatius. 

t Hilary always speaks of the Holy Spirit as the gift of God, 
(donum Dei.) In one place he writes thus; " He commands us to 



164 



DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY 



V. Before I dismiss this part of the subject, I will add, 
in as few words as possible, two or three general arguments, 
which go to prove, that the prevailing sentiments during the 
time of our Saviour, and also the opinions of the early chris- 
tians, were in accordance with what we have seen to be the 
plain sense of Scripture. 

1. The Jews had no conceptions of any three-fold distinc- 
tion in the Deity. They had for many centuries been under 
the peculiar guidance of God, and received an express reve- 
lation from him in regard to the coming of the Messiah, but 
they seem never to have had the remotest suspicion, that 
this Messiah was to be God himself. All the predictions 
relating to the Messiah, both in the writings of Moses and 

baptize in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy 
Spirit; that is, in the confession of the author, of the only begotten, 
and of the gift," &c. Baptizare jussit in nomine Patris, et Filii, et 
Spiritus Sancti; id est, in confessione et auctoris, et unigeniti, e 
doni, &c. Ibid. p. 292. 

According to Gregory Nazianzen, when this subject first began 
to be agitated, three distinct opinions were prevalent. First, that 
the Holy Spirit was an operation ; secondly, that it was a created 
substance ; thirdly, that it was God. Tw de r.a^ t 4 tiag ooipwv, ol 
iisv bveqyeiccv rovro (to Ilrsvpu) v7t£).u£ov, ol ds y.Tioua, ol Ss &eov. 
Orat. 37. Vid. Pearson's Notes, p. 387. 

The Jews held to the first of these opinions. They believed the 
Holy Spirit to be the energy or influence of God, and they sup- 
posed it was by this divine energy that the prophets were inspired. 
Maimonides, in giving the various significations of the Hebrew 
word spirit, says it sometimes means a " divine intellectual influ- 
ence," and at others, "a purpose, or volition ;" and when it is ap- 
plied to the Deity, it partakes of both these significations. He thus 
describes its fifth and sixth significations. Quinto significat (mi) 
influentiam illam intellectualem divinam a Deo prophetis instil- 
latam, cujus viritute prophetant. Sexto significat propositum, et 
voluntatem. — Vox hsec ^^ quando Deo attribuitur, ubique sumitur 
partim in quinta, partim in sexta significatione, quatenus volunta- 
tem significat. Mor. Nevoch c. 40, Ibid p. 391. 



AS HELD BY THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH. 165 

the prophets, were such as could never lead them to sup- 
pose that they referred to the God of Israel. Take for 
example the words of God, which were spoken by 
Moses. " I will raise them up a prophet from among their 
bretheren like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth, 
and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him.' 1 ' 
Deut. xviii. IS. Is there any thing here said, from which 
it can be inferred that this prophet was the second person 
in the trinity ; or that he was God, or equal to God ? On 
the contrary, is not the declaration express, that he was to 
be a prophet like Moses ; that he was to be raised up, not by 
his own power, but by the power of God, and was to speak 
what God commanded him ? 

The prophets allude to his sufferings and death in such a 
way as to render it impossible, that they should at the same 
time be speaking of God. The divine unity was a funda- 
mental doctrine of the religion of the Jews, and nothing 
probably has contributed so much to keep them from em- 
bracing the christian faith, as the idea, that the doctrine of 
the trinity makes an essential part of it. They cannot be 
persuaded to believe in any account of the Messiah, which 
involves a doctrine so inconsistent with their views of the 
whole tenor of the Old Testament. Their aversion to this 
doctrine is so great, that, according to Buxtorf, they make 
the following article of belief a part of their daily devotions. 
"I believe with an entire faith, that God, the Creator, is one 
person, and that the unity, or oneness, which is in him, is 
not in any other." It is certainly remarkable, if such a doc- 
trine as the trinity were contained in the Old Testa- 
ment, that the Jews, for whom the whole book was espe- 
cially designed, should never have found it out. 

2. It does not appear, that the companions of Jesus while 
he was upon earth or the persons who saw, and conversed 
with him, believed him to be God. On one occasion, after 
15 



166 



DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY 



he had healed a sick man in a miraculous manner, " The 
multitude marvelled, and glorified God, which had given 
such power unto men." Matt. ix. 8. It would seem 
from this passage, that the people considered Christ as a 
man, and that he performed his miracles by a power, which 
he derived from God ; as indeed he had already told them. 

The way in which Philip described Jesus to Nathanael 
was as follows ; u We have found him of whom Moses in 
the law, and the prophets did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the 
son of Joseph." John i. 45. From this language would it 
ever be suspected, that Philip thought him to be God? 
When Mary saw him, after the death of her brother Laza- 
rus, she said to him, " if thou hadst been here my brother 
had not died." Would she have spoken thus, if she had 
believed him to be the omnipresent God ? The people are 
said in many places to have considered him a prophet. After 
he had miraculously fed the five thousand, those present ex- 
claimed, " This is of a truth that prophet that should come 
into the world." The woman of Samaria said to him, after 
his conversation with her, u I perceive thou art a prophet." 
When he asked his disciples, "Whom do men say, that I, 
the son of man, am," they replied, " Some say that thou 
art John the Baptist ; some, Elias ; and others, Jeremias, 
on one of the prophets." Matt. xvi. 14. Here we have the 
prevailing opinions of the people respecting Jesus, and there 
is not the remotest hint, that any one considered him to be 
the most high God. So far from it, that they speak of him 
in no higher character, than that of one of the old prophets. 

3. It is further remarkable, if our Saviour had preached 
such a doctrine as that of the trinity, that the evangelists 
should not have stated it explicit^, and taken some pains to 
explain and enforce it. No doctrine could be more novel, 
none more important, and none more opposed to the rooted 
prejudices of the Jews. But when we come to examine, we 



AS HELD BY THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH. 167 

find nothing said, in the three first gospels, which can have 
any direct bearing on the subject, and the introduction to 
the gospel of John admits quite as clear an interpretation 
according to the unitarian, as any trinitarian hypothesis. 
The strong evidence, which the four gospels contain, that 
no one in the time of our Saviour thought him to be God, 
and the entire silence of the evangelists on the subject of a 
trinity in any form, are objections to this scheme not easily 
to be answered. 

4. Another argument to the same effect is contained in 
the preaching of the apostles, after the ascension of Christ. 
We have a minute account of their preaching in the Acts 
of the Apostles. It is to be supposed, that in promulga- 
ting the christian religion among the heathen nations, the 
apostles preached all its important doctrines. Yet he will 
read in vain, who shall expect to find any thing relating to 
a trinity in a single discourse of theirs, which has been re- 
corded. They preached, that Jesus was the Christ, the son 
of God, and that God had raised him from the dead ; but 
they never spoke of his being the " very and eternal God." 
They never intimated, that God exists in a threefold nature, 
or in any other nature than that of the one true God. 

I will give two or three examples, which will show their 
manner of preaching in respect to the character of Christ. 
In Peter's sermon immediately after the descent of the Ho- 
ly Spirit, on the day of Pentecost, he thus addresses the au- 
dience ; " Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of 
Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles, 
and wonders, and signs, which God did by him in the midst 
of you, as ye yourselves also know." Acts ii. 22. Would 
any one infer from these words, that the apostle meant the 
people to consider Jesus the same as God, or equal to him ? 
He not only mikes him a distinct being, but declares that 
he performed miracles by the agency of God. The whole 



168 DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY 

discourse of Peter is of the same import. He concludes 
by saying, u Let all the house of Israel know assuredly, 
that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have cruci- 
fied, both Lord and Christ." v. 36. According to the trini- 
tarian scheme, Jesus, who was made Lord and Christ, was 
himself the same being by whom he was made Lord and 
Christ. If Christ were actually the Supreme Being, it is 
very strange, that in this discourse, the whole object of 
which was to explain his character, Peter should constantly 
represent him not only as distinct from the Father, but as 
subordinate to him. All he says of the Holy Spirit in this 
discourse is, that it had been shed forth, and those who 
should be baptized " in the name of Christ," should " re- 
ceive the gift of the Holy Spirit." I presume no language 
could be more unlike the articles of the Church, than that 
which is used in this place by the apostle. He does not 
call the Holy Spirit God, but a gift ; and Jesus he calls a 
" man approved of God." 

Another striking example is found in Paul's discourse to 
the Athenians. " As I passed by and beheld your devo- 
tions, I found an altar with this inscription, to the unknown 
God. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him de- 
clare I unto you." Acts xvii. 23. The first thing to be 
observed here, is, that the apostle was about to teach the 
Athenians the character of the true God. If he had sup- 
posed God to exist in three persons, he could not but make 
so remarkable a trait a very prominent part of his explana- 
tion. But how does he proceed ? " God, that made the 
world, and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heav- 
en and earth, dvveileth not in temples made with hands." 
v. 24. He goes on in the same kind of language through 
the whole discourse, uniformly speaking of God as one 
being, and never intimating that he exists in more than one 
person. After thus explaining to the Athenians the nature 



AS HELD EY THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH. 169 

of the true God, lie speaks of Christ at the conclusion, as 
follows. " And the times of this ignorance God winked 
at ; but now commandeth all men every where to repent ; 
because he hath appointed a day in the which he will judge 
the world in righteousness by that man, whom he hath or- 
dained ; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in 
that he hath raised him from the dead." v. 31. Could it 
enter the minds of the Athenians, that the God, whom the 
apostle had just mentioned as having made the world, was 
actually the " man " by whom he would judge the world, 
and whom he had raised from the dead ? They must have 
believed this, if they supposed from the apostle's account, 
that Jesus was one of three persons, which constituted the 
Deity. We may observe in addition, that in giving this 
character of the true God, the apostle says nothing of the 
Holy Spirit. But if the Deity consists of three distinct 
persons, of which the Spirit is one, is it credible, that he 
would have passed over this remarkable fact in silence ? 

I need not insist on this argument, drawn from the preach- 
ing of the apostles. Any one has only to read the book of 
Acts, with a particular view to the topics on which they 
dwelt, to be convinced, that they adhered most strictly to 
the precept of St. Paul in his first epistle to Timothy, 
" There is one God, and one mediator between God and, men, 
the man Christ Jesus." They never speak of a God in " three 
persons," nor use any language, which conveys ideas ap- 
proaching to such a character of the Deity ; and yet St. 
Paul does not hesitate to say to the Ephesians, " I have 
not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God." 
Acts xx. 27. If the apostles could declare the whole coun- 
sel of God without once alluding to a trinity, why shouM 
we think it important at this time to ingraft this doctrine 
into our faith, and make it a part of the christian religion ? 
5. It is well ascertained from the best testimony, which 
15* 



170 DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY 

can be derived from history, that the great mass of chris- 
tians for the two first centuries were unitarian. This fact 
is generally admitted by all parties, so far as it regards the 
Nazarenes, or Jewish christians, and a portion also of the 
Gentile christians. Although there is no direct authority 
in the written word of God for the doctrine of the trinity, 
especially in the form in which it is received by the episco- 
pal church, yet if this doctrine could not be distinctly traced 
to some later source, your argument of tradition might per- 
haps be thought to apply here, and we should be required 
to believe in the trinity, for the same reason that we are re- 
quired to believe in the divine origin of episcopacy, and the 
traditional ceremonies of the Protestant Episcopal and Cath- 
olic churches, because we cannot go back to " any one pe- 
riod in which it could probably have originated.'" But for- 
tunately we have not this difficulty to encounter in the pres- 
ent instance. Few things in history are better settled, than 
the origin of the trinity. The close analogy between this 
doctrine and the philosophical speculations of Plato, leaves 
no room for mistake. Many of the first converts to Chris- 
tianity were Piatonists, and they spared no pains in tracing 
out resemblances between the new religion, which they had 
embraced, and the philosophy to which they had become so 
strongly wedded while heathens. 

Plato had some obscure notions of three distinct princi- 
ples in nature. These principles were, first, a Supreme 
Being, or chief Cause ; secondly, a divine mind ; thirdly, 
the soul of the universe. When the Piatonists became Chris- 
tians, finding some general analogy between this part of their 
philosophy, and the accounts given in the New Testament 
of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, they gradually inter- 
wove with these many of the peculiar properties of the 
three Platonic principles, and by this unnatural combina- 
tion, the doctrine of the trinity assumed by degrees the 



AS HELD BY THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH. 171 

shape in which it has appeared in later times. It does not 
come within my purpose to enter into the particulars of 
this history. It has often been done by able hands ; and 
the result has been such as to convince any one, who will 
examine their inquiries with patience and impartiality, that 
the origin of the trinity can be traced to the P] atonic phi- 
losophy, with as much precision, as any fact of those times, 
either political, civil, or ecclesiastical, can be established by 
the authority of history.* 

The principal points of controversy at first, had regard 
to the nature of Christ. It has already been seen, that the 
Holy Spirit was not elevated to the rank of a person in the 
trinity, till near the close of the fourth century. Several 
sects early sprang up in the first ages, who entertained va- 
rious sentiments respecting the nature and character of 
Christ ; but during the three first centuries, there is no 
trace of any doctrine, like that adopted by the episcopal 
church, in which the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are con- 
sidered to be three distinct persons of equal power and dig- 
nity. 

The Apostles' 1 Creed is a remarkable proof of this fact. 
Although it cannot be ascertained when this creed was first 
made, yet it is undoubtedly very ancient. At whatever pe- 
riod it was formed, it must be supposed to have been in- 

* The account which Le Clcrc gives of the three Platonic prin- 
ciples is as follows: 

Plato autem dixit primum esse 70 or, ainov arcavrwv, Eiis, Cau- 
sam omnium rerum ; secundum vero ?.oyov, Rationevi et Rectorem 
prasentium et futurorum ; tertiutn denique \ivyrr y.oauor, Animam, 
ive Spiritum mundi. Secundum quidem Principium a primo 
gcnitum, seu factum ; tertium vero a secundo adfirmat. Ars Crit- 
ica,, P. ii. § 1. c. 15. 

He observes further, that Parmenides was the first, who advanced 
the idea of three principles. Primus omnium tria principia con- 
stituit Parmenides Ibid. 



172 DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY 

tended to contain what were then considered all the impor- 
tant doctrines of the christian religion. It, nevertheless, 
gives no countenance to a trinity, and contains very little, 
if any thing, on this subject, to which every unitarian will 
not assent.* 

I have reserved this opportunity to make some further 
remarks on your quotations from the epistles of Ignatius. 
Enough has already been said on the suspicious character 
of these epistles to make it appear, that they are not enti- 
tled to the least degree of credit as authority in points of 
controversy. Many epistles, which have gone out under 
the name of Ignatius, are universally acknowledged to be 
spurious ; and those, which are admitted by some to be gen- 
uine, are as universally allowed to be mangled and interpo- 
lated. And it is a well known fact, that many of the inter- 
polations, which have been detected, relate particularly to 
the trinity. 

I will quote two or three of those, which were detected 
by archbishop Usher. 

" Our Lord and God Jesus Christ, the Son of the living 
God." 

u One only begotten Son, the Word, God and Man." 

* Those, who wish to see the doctrine of the trinity traced by 
historical deductions to its true source, may find it done in a very 
concise and perspicuous manner in professor Norton's " Statement 
of Reasons for not believing the Doctrines of Trinitarians respect- 
ing the nature of God, and the Person of Christ," written in reply 
to professor Stuart's Letters to Mr. Channing, p. 31. 

A more full account is also contained in the General Repos. 
and Rev. vol. iii. p. 13. Cud worth's Intellectual System, Book i. 
chap. 4. Priestley's Hist, of Early Opinions. And some remarks 
may be found to the purpose in Le Clerc's Ars Critica, Pars Se- 
cunda, S 15. 



AS HELD BY THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH. 173 

" God the Word dwelt in a human body."* 
Now whatever Ignatius may have written, it is certain 
he did not write these passages ; although, if they had not 
been discovered to be spurious, they would now be defend- 
ed with as much zeal as any other parts of his reputed 
writings. Whatever he wrote, these passages were added 
by some later hand. From these insertions two things are 
evident ; first, that when they were made, these writings 
were not thought sufficiently strong in favor of the trinity ; 
and secondly, that no confidence can be placed in any other 
passages of a similar character. If the original writings 
taught explicitly the doctrine of the trinity, why should 
these additions have been deemed necessary ?"[ 

* Usher's edition of Ignatius' Epistles, Oxford, 1644, p, 42, 96, 
202 ; as quoted in Lind. Sequel, p. 446. 

t Speaking of the seven epistles, Less, who believes them to be 
genuine, observes, " These are tolerably well purified from modern 
interpolations. I say tolerably zcell, for even the smaller edition ap- 
pears in certain places to be suspicious." Less on the Ne// Testa- 
ment, p. 71. 

Notwithstanding the suspicious character of these epistles, and 
the very great probability that they were written by some design- 
ing person to impose on the world, they are thought to be of so 
much account to the episcopal church, that they have lately been 
published in England as a tract for general circulation, by a " So- 
ciety for the Distribution of Tracts," &c. and in this form they 
help to make up the book called "The Churchman armed." See 
vol. i. p. 145. 

In this same book is inserted the learned treatise of bishop Bur- 
gess to prove, that " St. Paul was the founder of the church in 
Britian." Vol. ii. p. 316. "The church of Britian was establish- 
ed before the church of Rome." p. 389. 

But the church has hitherto been contending, that it has descend- 
ed through the church of Rome. How is this point to be settled ? 
Or how is it to be explained, that the church has been so long in 
an error ? 



174 DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY, ETC. 

Among the extracts, which you make from Ignatius, are 
the following. 

" Continue inseparable from Jesus Christ our God." 

" Follow your bishop, as Jesus Christ the Father." 
It will be seen, by a single glance of the eye, how striking 
a resemblance there is between these quotations, and those 
above, which were proved by archbishop Usher to have 
been inserted by design ; and there is the strongest presump- 
tive evidence, that they all have a similar origin. You 
must allow me again to express my surprise, that you should 
quote passages of this character, which are so very impor- 
tant in their consequences, without at least intimating to 
your readers, that they are of doubtful authority, and should 
be received with very great caution. 

I have thus finished the general view, which I proposed 
to take of the doctrine of the trinity, as contained in the ar- 
ticles of the church. 1 have attempted to compare it with 
reason, with scripture, and with itself; and in my mind 
the conviction is irresistible, that, as it is there stated, it is 
irrational, unscriptural, and contradictory in its parts. Not 
only so, its origin may be traced to a period much later, than 
that of our Saviour, or his apostles. These things consid- 
ered, I cannot persuade myself, that such a doctrine is to 
be received as in any manner connected with the pure, the 
consistent, and holy religion of the Lord Jesus Christ. 



LETTER VI. 



EXPOSITION OF CERTAIN TEXTS OF SCRIPTURE 
SUPPOSED TO FAVOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE 
TRINITY. 



Reverand and dear sir, 

It only remains in this letter to explain the texts of 
scripture, which you have adduced in proof of the u divinity 
of the Saviour," and some others usually brought forward 
in support of the doctrine of the trinity. 

After reading the extracts from scripture, which are con- 
tained in the preceding letter, no one probably will deny, 
that the unitarian doctrine of the superiority of the Father, 
and the inferiority of the Son and Holy Spirit is in some 
sense true. Trinitarians argue, that these texts are to be mod- 
ified and explained in accordance with others, which they 
think teach the deity of the Saviour and of the Holy Spirit, 
and their equality with the Father. On the contrary, uni- 
tarians hold, that the plain and obvious sense of the whole 
scriptures, both of ihe Old Testament and New, forcibly in- 
culcates the unity and supremacy of God, and the inferiority 
of Christ ; and also, that every text, which is thought to be 
favorable to the trinitarian hypothesis, may, by fair and ra- 
tional principles of interpretation, be explained in conformity 
with this clear and prevailing sense of scripture. They do 



176 EXPOSITION OF TEXTS OF SCRIPTURE. 

not deny, that many passages are consistent with trinitarian 
views, but they maintain, that these are equally consistent, 
when properly understood, with the sentiments of unitari- 
ans ; and they complain, that these passages have been 
forced into a meaning, in support of the trinity, contrary to 
the general tenor of scripture, the strongest dictates of the 
understanding, the express and repeated declarations of our 
Saviour, the preaching of the apostles, the sentiments of the 
whole Jewish nation, and of the primitive christians. They 
think there ought to be consistency in these things, and 
that no persons should attempt to support doctrines by 
scripture authority, which, from a full examination of the 
subject, it is well ascertained, were not known till more 
than tioo hundred years after the last book of the Bible was 
written. 

After humble, patient, and persevering inquiries into the 
scriptures, unitarians find nothing taught there, which is con- 
trary to the numerous positive declarations of our Saviour ; 
that he was inferior to the Father, sent by him, and derived 
all things from him ; nothing inconsistent with the universal 
sentiments of the Jews and primitive christians respecting the 
unity and supremacy of God ; nothing in one part contra- 
dictory to the necessary sense of another ; nothing, which 
violates reason, or opposes the decision of the understand- 
ing. To them the whole appears, as they think every 
revelation from God must appear, rational, consistent, in- 
telligible. They find many texts, which they believe it 
impossible to explain on the trinitarian hypothesis, without 
violating every just principle of language ; but none, which 
will no: admit a fair interpretation in favor of the doctrine 
of the absolute unity. They do not profess to meet with 
no difficulties. In a book like the Bible, which has been 
transmitted through so many ages, it is impossible, that 
these should not abound. But they find none, which, ac- 



EXPOSITION OF TEXTS OF SCRIPTURE. 177 

cording to the unitarian hypothesis, may not be solved on 
rational and scriptural principles ; but many, which, accord- 
ing to the trinitarian scheme, are inexplicable. 

It is a charge often brought against unitarians, that they 
think it their duty to consult their understanding in form- 
ing their religious opinions. They think no one can be ex- 
cused from exercising his reason, on a subject of the utmost 
moment and interest. They believe God did not make a reve- 
lation, which was not to be understood by his creatures, be- 
cause no purpose could be answered by such a revelation. 
Reason is the ruling principle of decision and action in the 
common affairs of life ; it gives laws to the will ; the other 
faculties of the mind are all subordinate to this, and designed 
only as secondaries and aids ; and shall we forsake this guid- 
ing principle, when we come to study the scriptures, and 
search out the treasures of divine truth ? If we abandon this 
guide, we shall be left to the mercy of prejudice, and the 
unlicensed control of the imagination, and shall act, in the 
momentous cause of religion, as we could never be induced 
to act in the most trivial concerns of life. 

When unitarians are charged with putting the decisions 
of reason in competition with the truths of revelation, it is 
a false charge. Whatever they find revealed in the word of 
God, they receive most cordially and implicitly ; but they 
regard it an imperious duty to use their best faculties in as- 
certaining what is, and what is not revealed. They place 
no reliance on the interpretations of fallible men, any farther 
than from their own inquiry they find them sanctioned in 
the scriptures. By what faculty of the mind are we to 
judge, if not by the understanding ; or b}>- what proofs are 
we to be convinced, if not by the results of our own delibe- 
rate investigations. 

Chillingworth speaks with great force and truth in re- 
pelling the same charge, as it was formerly made by the 
16 



178 EXPOSITION OF TEXTS OF SCRIPTURE. 

Catholics against the protestant churches. " Propose me 
any thing out of the Bible, and require whether I believe it 
or no, and seem it never so incomprehensible to human 
reason, I will subscribe it with hand and heart, as knowing 
no demonstration can be stronger than this ; God|hath said 
so, therefore it is true. In other things I will take no man's 
liberty of judgment from him; neither shall any man take 
mine from me. I will think no man the worse man, nor 
the worse Christian, I will love no man the less for differing 
in opinion from me. And what measure I mete to others, 
I expect from them again. I am fully assured, that God 
does not, and therefore that men ought not to require any 
more of man, than this ; to believe the scripture to be 
God's word, to endeavor to find the true sense of it, and to 
live according to it." # Every unitarian, it is believed, 
would subscribe to these sentiments "with hand and heart." 
Every one believes what the Bible contains, and for the same 
reason as Chillingworth, " because God hath said it." But 
since christians differ so widely respecting what is actually 
contained in the Bible, how can we give peace to our con- 
science, or be satisfied that we have the whole truth, unless 
we use our best faculties in conducting our inquiries, and 
forming our judgment ? There has probably never been a 
unitarian, who rejected any doctrine or opinion, which oth- 
ers have thought to be in the scriptures, solely because this 
doctrine or opinion was not consonant to reason. 

If you tell me you believe a doctrine, which you ac- 
knowledge to be unintelligible and irrational, you must sup- 
pose such an acknowledgment will at least excite a suspi- 
cion, that you may be in a mistake. If you go on to tell 
me, that this doctrine is contained in scripture, I still shall 



* Chillin 
tion, chap, v 



igworth's Religion of Protestants, a safe way to Salva- 
vi. Protestants not Heretics, sec. 56. 



EXPOSITION OF TEXTS OF SCRIPTURE. 179 

not be able to believe it, till I have examined seriously and 
patiently for myself ; because I cannot believe a propo- 
sition till I am convinced by some course of reasoning 
that it is true. If the scriptures are to be believed at all, 
it must be on the authority of reason ; and, indeed, by 
what other authority can you determine the truth of any 
doctrine or opinion ? And admitting you could believe a 
thing for which you could give no reason, what would be 
the value of such a faith ? 

" When faith is virtue, reason makes it so." 

The truth is, all our religious opinions, which can be 
called such, are founded on reason, and to deny its use 
would be to reject our religion altogether. Why do we 
believe in the life, sufferings, and death of our Saviour, or 
why do we believe, that the apostles have given us a faith- 
ful account of his instructions, except from the conviction, 
which is produced by a rational investigation of the subject ? 
I have heard preachers, in the commencement of a discourse, 
declaim vehemently against the use of reason in deciding 
on the articles of religious faith, and yet make the chief 
burden of what followed a series of arguments, to prove some 
of the principal tenets of their belief. 

Some effect is produced on the minds of the uninformed by 
telling them, that unitarians "exalt reason above revelation." 
To any one, who is in the least degree acquainted with 
their writings, such a charge needs no refutation. If to 
search with patient and unwearied labor, with a pious and 
humble desire of knowing the truth, as it was revealed by 
Jesus Christ, and preached by the apostles ; if to value the 
commands of God more than the commands of men, and to 
think it neccessary to be convinced of a fact before it is be- 
lieved ; if to acknowledge the divine will as the only proper 
rule of conduct, to rest the hope of future safety wholly on 



IflS* EXPOSITION OF TEXTS OF SCRIPTURE. 

the mercy of God, and to expect salvation on no other 
terms, than repentance, obedience, and a holy life ; — if these 
be to exalt reason above revelation, few unitarians probably 
will care to free themselves from the imputation ; if they 
be not, the charge is unfounded. 

We are told, that they have a habit of rejecting such doc- 
trines, as they do not comprehend. This also is a mistake. 
They reject no doctrine for this reason only, because they 
do not comprehend it. ISo man, it is presumed, pretends to 
comprehend the attributes of God, or any of his works in 
their full extent. I cannot comprehend his existence, nor 
my own, nor the existence of any thing. 1 cannot compre- 
hend the structure of my own frame, nor of any organized 
substance in nature. Yet I believe these things, because 
they harmonize perfectly with my understanding, my con- 
science, and every principle of my mind. I discover noth- 
ing in them contradictory or impossible. I should believe 
in a miracle upon the same principle ; not because I can 
comprehend it, but because my reason convinces me that 
God is a Being of infinite power, and ma} T , if he choose, 
manifest his power in the working of a miracle. If I did 
not first use my reason, I could never be convinced, that it 
was not a deception. 

But it is one thing for a proposition or doctrine to be in- 
comprehensible, and quite a different thing for it to be con- 
tradictory, or inconsistent with the plainest principles of the 
understanding, or with any known, positive truth. I do 
not believe, that one man will be punished for the sins 
which another has committed, nor that God has elected a 
certain number to everlasting life, and left the remainder of 
mankind to perish without remedy, — not becuuse these doc- 
trines are incomprehensible, but because they are inconsis- 
tent with the goodness and justice of God, which I consider 
established truths. I do not believe, that the earth is a 



EXPOSITION OF TEXTS OF SCRIPTURE. 181 

plane surface, and stands still, and that the sun revolves 
around it every day, — not because these things are incom- 
prehensible, but because my reason has convinced me, that 
they are inconsistent with the experience of wise men, and 
the laws of nature. That a proposition is incomprehensible, 
therefore, is no ground for rejecting it, and he must be very 
much in the dark, and have no common share of credulity, 
who fancies, that any unitarian has on this ground disbe- 
lieved a single article of faith, which has been received by 
other christians. 

The doctrine of the trinity, perhaps, is as incomprehensi- 
ble as any thing ; and yet I do not disbelieve this doctrine 
because I cannot comprehend it. I disbelieve it, first, be- 
cause I can find no authority for it in scripture ; secondly 
because it is contradictory in itself; thirdly, because it is 
inconsistent with the moral attributes of God ; and fourthly, 
because it violates all the rules of light reasoning by which in 
other cases I am enabled to come at a knowledge of truth. 

Furthermore, unitarians are charged with not believing 
in mysteries. From this charge very few among them it is 
presumed would desire to escape. Is not the christian re- 
ligion a revelation from God, designed to enlighten, improve, 
and encourage his creatures, and is it credible, that such a 
revelation should contain mysteries, or dark unintelligible 
doctrines ? Did God commission his only Son to publish 
his will to men by miracles and wonders, and at the same 
time make his communications in such terms as they could 
not possibly understand, or even conceive ? The very idea 
implies an impeachment against the goodness of God, at 
which the mind revolts. The design of a revelation was to 
draw aside the veil of obscurity, and bring down a knowl- 
edge of the divine nature, the principles of duty, and the 
prospects of futurity to the capacities of men. But how is 
this design affected, if we are still involved in mystery ? And 
16* 



1S2 EXPOSITION OF TEXTS OF SCRIPTURE. 

what conception, let me ask, can you form of a revealed 
mystery ? What is a revelation, but something made known, 
which was before unknown. Whatever continues to be 
unknown, and cannot possibly be understood, has certainly 
never been revealed. If we hold, that our religion is mys- 
terious and unintelligible, we make a very wrong use of 
language, when we call it a revelation ; and if we believe it 
to be a revelation, we speak very inconsistently, when we 
say it is not to be understood. 

If we look into the sacred writings we shall not find, 
that our Saviour, or his apostles, ever spoke of any myste- 
ries in their instructions, which their followers were not to 
understand. The word mystery is often used in the Bible, 
but never to signify a thing, which is unintelligible or con- 
tradictory to reason. Some doctrines are said to have been 
mysterious before they were revealed ; but there is no in- 
stance in which a revealed truth is called a mystery.* 

* The writers on the trinitarian side of the controversy, have 
dwelt with much apparent fondness on the propensity of unitarians 
to use their understanding in judging of religious subjects; and 
none, perhaps, lias employed more words in discussing this topic, 
than Mr. William Burgh. A large portion of his long Reply to 
Mr. Lindsey's Apology, is occupied in proving, that there are many 
things incomprehensible. After having fully established this point, 
he lays it down as an axiom, that " About matters which we do 
not comprehend, it is obvious, that we cannot tcith certainty say any 
thing." p. 23. Does he mean, that we cannot say icith certainty 
that grass grows, the sun shines, or that a man moves when he 
walks, because we cannot comprehend these operations ? Such are 
the premises from which he draws the conclusion, that we cannot 
reason about the attributes and dispensations of the Deity. 

His words are, " The infinite and incomprehensible majesty of 
God is an object beyond the limits of reason; we are incapable of 
forming any idea of him." p. 23. Can we form no idea, then, of 
the power, the wisdom, and goodness of God ? How can we wor- 
ship a being of whom we can form no idea ? Or how can we talk 



EXPOSITION OF TEXTS OF SCRIPTURES. 183 

These introductory remarks have extended to a rather 
greater length, than I have been aware. We will now at- 
tend to the principal object of this letter, which is a consid- 
eration of certain texts of scripture, and especially those, 
which you have selected in proof of the divinity of Christ. 
As you profess to take these texts from Jones's work on the 
trinity, and as you call this " an inestimable work," and 
recommend it very highly to your readers, it will not be 
thought foreign to the purpose to say a few words on its 
character. 

It could not but excite a little astonishment to see a book 
quoted, as of the highest authority on this most important 
point of controversy, which scarcely a scholar or critic has 
before quoted w r ith approbation, since the day it was writ- 
ten. That it should be a popular book among the uninform- 
ed, who take the author's results as truths, without being- 
able to follow him through his show of criticism, is not 
wonderful ; but that a scholar and biblical critic, who can 
detect his fallacies in every page, and perceive the cloud of 
prejudice darkening and confounding every just principle of 
criticism and interpretation, should publicly sanction and 
recommend a work of this character, is hardly to be ac- 

of the benevolence, the mercy, the love of God, or indeed of any 
of his attributes, if they are totally beyond our conception ? Do 
we not reason perpetually about the attributes of God ? Do we 
not say, that one event indicates his icisdom, another his poicer, 
another his goodness ; and do we not say, that the justice of God 
will award an adequate punishment to the guilt of a sinner? We 
do not comprehend these attributes fully; } T et still, as far as we do 
comprehend them, we can reason about them, as well as about 
the innumerable operations of nature, which we do not compre- 
hend. The character of this book may be very easily imagined, 
when it is known, that the specimens here quoted are some of the 
Kxaihox'sjirst principles. 



184 EXPOSITION OF TEXTS OF SCRIPTURE. 

counted for by the usual mode of judging of motives from 
actions. 

It is the way of this writer to bring together short pas- 
sages selected at random from different parts of the scrip- 
tures, each of which contains some of the same, or similar 
words to the other, and to infer immediately that they mean 
the same thing. No regard is had to the context, nor does 
he seem ever to have dreamed, that the same word may 
mean very different things, when used in different connex- 
ions. In this way you may prove the trinity from the Ko- 
ran, and show the Vedas of the Hindoos, the Talmuds and 
Targums of the Jews, to be treatises written in support of 
orthodoxy. In short, you may prove any thing from any 
book. 

A few examples from the work in question will exhibit 
the grounds of these remarks. 

John iii, 29. " He that hath the bride is the bride- 
groom." 

Isaiah liv. 5. " Thy maker is thy husband, the Lord of 
Hosts is his name." 

From these two texts thus brought together, the author 
infers, that Christ is the Supreme God. 

John iii. 6. " That which is horn of the Spirit" 

1 John v. 4. " Whatsoever is born of God" 

This is his first proof of the " divinity of the Holy 
Ghost." To prove "the trinity in unity v he quotes the 
following text. 

Psalm xxxiii. 6. " By the word of the Lord were the 
heavens made, and all the host of them by the breath of his 
mouth." On this text he remarks, "the whole trinity, 
therefore, created the world." Another argument for the 
trinity in unity is drawn from the following collocation of 
texts. 

Rom. vii. 25. " I myself serve the law of God." 



EXPOSITION OF TEXTS OF SCRIPTURE. 185 

Gal. vi. 2. " Fulfil the law of Christ.' 1 
Rom. viii. 2. " The law of the spirit of life." 
By the same kind of reasoning might St. Paul be proved 
to be a person in the trinity, because he says, 
Rom. vii. 23. " The law of my mind." 
I will add only one example more. 
John vi. 45. " They shall be all taught of God" 
Gal. i. 12. " Neither was I taught it, but by the revela- 
tion of Jesus Christ." 

John xiv. 26. " The Comforter, the Holy Spirit, will 
teach you all things." 

Because teaching is here predicated of God, of Jesus 
Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, it is supposed to follow, that 
these three are one and the same God. Upon this princi- 
ple, why should not every person, who is said in the scrip- 
tures to teach, be considered as sustaining the same charac- 
ter ? Paul and Barnabas " taught much people." Acts xi. 
26. Therefore, Paul and Barnabas constitute a part of the 
" trinity in unity,"* 

* This paralogistic mode of reasoning appears to have been a 
very favorite one, with a certain class of writers. Mr. Burgh has 
adopted it throughout his book in very close imitation of Jones. 

In one part of the scriptures, mention is made of " the grace of 
God," and in another, of " the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ," 
from which Mr. Burgh thinks it a logical inference, that " the god- 
head of the Father and the Son is the same." chap. iii. § 23. 

Again, Paul at one time calls himself " a servant of God," and 
at another, " the servant of Jesus Christ ;" therefore, Christ is the 
most high God. Sec. 35. 

The apostle speaks on a certain occasion of " ministering the 
gospel of God," and soon after adds, that he had " preached the 
gospel of Christ." It follows, according to this new species of bib- 
lical logic, that " Jesus Christ is one with the Father, God." 
Sec. 51. 

After these examples, and the extracts before made from this 



186 EXPOSITION OF TEXTS OF SCRIPTURE- 

These extracts give a fair specimen of the general char- 
acter of Jones's work, so far as it regards his manner of 
reasoning. To say nothing of his unaccountable perver- 
sion, and numerous errors of criticism, what respect can we 
have for the candor or fairness of a writer, who descends 
on serious subjects to such a childish play upon words, as 
these specimens exhibit ? Is it possible, that the cause of 
the trinity requires such a support ? And above all, is this 
to be adopted as a true mode of interpreting the scriptures ? 

But the doctrinal part of this book is not its worst part. 
The spirit and temper with which it is written, are as dis- 
tant from the spirit and temper of Christ, as the doctrines 
it defends are contrary to the truths he taught. Let any 
one read the introduction, and the letter at the end of the 
book, and see how much he will find of the mild and gentle 
spirit inculcated in the gospel. Let him especially observe 
in what manner the writer constantly speaks of Dr. Samuel 
Clarke, the friend of Newton, and one of the most able, 

writer, it is scarcely necessary to add, that he acknowledged him- 
self to be " altogether unread in theological disputations." p. 221. 
It was most unfortunate, that his evil star should lead him to write 
a book of two hundred and fifty pages, in defence of the trinity, 
if lie was conscious of being thus ignorant of the subject. 

In reading such books as these of Jones and Burgh, one cannot 
but be forcibly reminded of bishop Newton's remarks in his Dis- 
sertation on the Difficulties of Scripture. He speaks of men, 
" who interpret scripture according to their opinions, and frame 
not their opinions according to scripture. They quote the scripture, 
and one would think they understood at least what they quote ; 
but alas, in their quotations they manifestly regard the bare icords 
more than the meaning, and so there is but something apposite in 
the sound, no matter how remote it is in the signification." See 
Nisbett's Messiah, p. 11. 

Another writer, who is fond of interpreting the scriptures after 
the manner of Jones, is Dr. Nares of Biddenden. See his Re- 
marks on the Improved Version of the New Testament, p. 221. 



EXPOSITION OF TEXTS OF SCRIPTURE. 187 

learned, and pious men of the age in which he lived. In 
one place he charges him with professing to " believe in 
two different Gods j" and in another, after censuring him, 
with a sneer, for changing some of his religious opinions, 
he says, " and to put the best face he could upon his unbe- 
lief, he spent much of the remainder of his life in writing 
ambiguous comments, and finding various readings, that is, 
in picking holes in the Bible."* Such is the work, which 
you seriously recommend to your readers, and to which you 
refer them for religious knowledge. | 

The passages of scripture usually adduced in support of 
the trinity I shall consider in the following order. 

I. Those in which Christ is called, or supposed to be 
called, God. 

II. Those in which such properties are ascribed to him, 
as it is thought could be ascribed only to God, or to a being 
equal to God ; and some of those, which are believed to con- 
tain general proofs of the doctrine of the trinity. 

I. As Jesus is sometimes called God in the scriptures, it 
has been inferred, that he must be the Supreme Being. 
This might be an argument of some force, if it were not 
true, that the sacred writers often apply the same title to 
other persons. On examining the scriptures we shall dis- 
cover, that it was not uncommon for those, who were emi- 
nent for their virtues, or dignity of station, to be called 
Gods. " And the Lord said unto Moses, see, I have made 
thee a God unto Pharaoh." Exod. vii. 1. " Thou shalt 
not revile the Gods, nor curse the ruler of thy people." 
xxii. 28. " For the Lord your God, is God of Gods." 

* Catholic Doctrine of the Trinity, New York, 1813, p. 169. 

t This is the work, which the editor of the American edition of 
Festivals and Fasts says, in his usual summary way, " has put the 
question, whether the doctrine of the trinity be revealed in scrip- 
ture, beyond all further controversy." p. 224. 



188 EXPOSITION OF TEXTS OF SCRIPTURE. 

Deut. x. 17. " God standeth in the congregation of the 
mighty; hejudgeth among the Gods." Ps. Ixxxii. 1. "I 
have said ye are Gods, v. 6. " Among the Gods, there is 
none like unto thee, O Lord. 1 ' Ps. lxxxvi. 8. u Worship 
him, all ye Gods." xcvii. 7. The word God in all these 
passages means the prophets, the judges, or magistrates of 
Israel. The same word is sometimes rendered judges; as 
in Exodus xxi. 6. " Then his master shall bring him 
unto the judges," literally, " unto the Gods." In another 
place the same word is translated angels. Psal. viii. 5. 
" For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels," 
or " Gods ■"* From these texts, and from many others, 
which might be added, it appears, that the title which is 
supposed to prove Jesus to have been the Supreme Being, 
was given to Moses, the judges and magistrates of Israel, 
and to angels, as well as to Christ. 

This use of the term exactly coincides with the words of 
our Saviour himself, when he says, " Is it not written in 
your law, I said, ye are Gods ? If he called them Gods, unto 
whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be 
broken," &c. John x. 34, 35. This is a key to all the pas- 
sages above cited, and to all others in which the word 
God is applied to any other person, than the Supreme Being. 
The word of God came to Moses, the prophets, the rulers 
of Israel, and in a greater or less degree to every good man. 
For being thus eminently favored, they were sometimes 
called Gods. With what remarkable propriety may this 
application be made to the Lord Jesus ? What being has 
ever appeared among men, who was so highly endowed 
with every divine gift ? To no one has the word of God 

* The original word is t2^n^- r ^ ne passage is rendered by 
Jerom, paulo minus a Deo; by Aquilla and Symmachus, fioa/v ti 
naqa 6bov ; and by the Seventy, fina/v n raq' ayyskovg. Vid. Le 
Clerc, et Sept. Edit. Breit. in Loc. 



EXPOSITION OF TEXTS OF SCRIPTURE. 189 

come with so much power. Surely, if the prophets and 
wise men of old were called Gods by way of distinction, 
this title may be applied with vastly greater force and pro- 
priety to Christ, who was so highly exalted above them all. 
And yet, this is very far from proving him to be the Su- 
preme Being, any more than the other persons, who were 
called gods for similar reasons. 

It is also to be observed, that none of the names of the 
Deity, except this one of God, is ever applied to Christ, 
or to any other person. He is never called the Supreme 
Being, the Most High, Jehovah, the Eternal God, the only 
True God, the living God, the God of Gods, Holy God. If 
he were actually the Supreme God, is it not strange, that 
he should never have been called by any of these titles ? 
But the truth is, whenever he is spoken of as God, it is in 
a sense, which he himself defined, when he said, " those 
are called Gods unto whom the word of God came." 

A prominent text, which you bring forward in proof of 
the supreme divinity of Christ, is the noted one in Isaiah 
ix. 6. " For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given, 
and the government shall be upon his shoulder ; and his 
name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, the Mighty 
God, the Everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace." Such 
are the words as you have quoted them, and as they stand 
in the common version of the Bible. But it was hardly to 
be expected, that this text would be quoted at the present 
day, without a word of comment or explanation, to let it 
be known, that its most important parts are at least a very 
doubtful, and probably a false rendering of the original. 

The prophecy in this passage undoubtedly alludes to the 
Messiah, and consequently, the titles which it contains are 
to be applied to him. The only question is, whether the 
titles, or names, which were adopted by king James's trans- 
lators, have the same meaning, as those, which were origin- 
17 



190 EXPOSITION OF TEXTS OF SCRIPTURE. 

ally written by the prophet ? This can be ascertained only 
by a critical examination into the meaning of the original 
words, aided by a profound knowledge of the language in 
which they were written, and of the ancient translations. 
Such an examination has been repeatedly made by the most 
learned men of different religious sentiments, who have al- 
most unanimously concurred in a result, which proves the 
rendering of our common version to be more or less defec- 
tive. Is it dealing fairly, therefore, with those, who have 
not the means of information, to represent this text, as of 
undoubted authority in its present literal reading ? Should 
they not, at least, be told what they are to receive with im- 
plicit confidence, and what with caution ? Is it justifiable 
thus to confound truth with error, and to give countenance 
to popular prejudice, by making the scriptures speak what 
their writers never intended ? 

It is not denied, that commentators have found much dif- 
ficulty in this text, on account of the ambiguity of some of 
the Hebrew words ; yet they almost universally agree in 
giving it a meaning different from the one retained in our 
English version. 

The application of the two first titles is sufficiently obvi- 
ous ; and there seems to have been very little difference of 
opinion about them, except that in the judgment of some 
critics they ought so to be united, and of others, to be ta- 
ken separately. But whether they should be read Wonder- 
ful and Counsellor, or Wonderful Counsellor, is of little con- 
sequence in regard to the general meaning and application 
of the terms. Our Saviour might justly be called wonder- 
ful, in the astonishing works he performed ; and a counsel- 
lor, or a wonderful counsellor, in the admirable system of re- 
ligion he has published to the world ; in its doctrines, pre- 
cepts, admonitions, directions, and promises ; giving evi- 



EXPOSITION OF TEXTS OF SCRIPTURE. 191 

dence, that he was aided, instructed, and empowered from 
above. 

The next title, the Mighty God, is allowed to be a 
false translation, although there have been various opinions 
in regard to the exact import of the original. Le Clerc, 
who was a trinitarian, and as profound a scholar in biblical 
learning, perhaps, as any other person, renders the passage 
thus; " Wonderful, Divine Counsellor, Mighty.' 1 '' Christ was 
a divine counsellor in having derived all his counsels and 
precepts from God ; he was mighty in the miracles he per- 
formed, and the divine powers he possessed.* 

* The principal difficulty in this passage seems to have arisen 
from the doubtful meaning of the word "-^, which is sometimes 
rendered God, sometimes ruler or magistrate, and is sometimes 
used in the sense of an adjective to denote excellence or distinc- 
tion. Adhibetur de rebus magnis in suo genere eximiis, quae He- 
braeis divinoe dici solent, quasi earum vel praestantia et magnitudo 
vel natura ad Deura solum auctorem referri posset, velut ^ k i'i'"i& 
cedri divince, ~^ ^^n,-; montcs divini. Vid. Simon, in verb. 

This latter sense is preferred by Le Clerc. He unites the word 
^ with y$y*\ consiliarius, vel consultor, and renders them con- 
suitor divinus, and gives as his reason, ut intelligatur Messias futu- 
rus consultor divimis, vel cujus divina essent consilia ; hoc est prae- 
cepta, ut revera sunt. This also agrees with what is said of him 
in Isaiah xi. 2. " The spirit of counsel, and might shall rest upon 
him." 

There is much suspicion that the word ^ was not written in 
the original Hebrew, as there are no corresponding words in either 
of the ancient Greek versions of the Seventy, Acquila, Symma- 
chus, or Theodotiam Acquila renders the clause Qavuagog, avu- 
(lovlo;, ta^voog which Le Clerc approves, although he seems to 
think iciyvQoq was put for ^. It is perhaps more probable, that 
it was intended to be the rendering of ta n2> Vid. Clerici Comment, 
in Loc. 

Grotius takes the words in a different combination, and translates 
them Consulter of the Mighty God, CConsultator Dei Fortis,) or, as 
he explains it, one who in all things asked counsel of God. Al- 



192 FXPOSITION OF TEXTS OF SCRIPTURE. 

The fourth title, Everlasting Father, is translated by 
bishop Lowth, " the Father of the everlasting age," and by 
Grotius, " Father of the future age," or "of the age to come." 
This was strictly appropriate to Christ. He was the foun- 
der of a new dispensation, and of a pure and holy religion. 
He was the head of the church, and came to bestow the 
means of salvation on mankind, and to confer inestimable 
benefits, which should continue through all ages.* 

The application of the last title no one can mistake. He 
was eminently the Prince of Peace in giving a religion to the 
world, whose direct tendency is to promote peace among 
men. 

Such are the renderings, which the most able critics have 
given of this text. They are such as the original easily re- 
ceives, and such as are peculiarly applicable to the character 
of Christ, as it was exhibited in his life and religion. The 
text, thus explained, gives no support to the doctrine of the 
supreme divinity of Christ, and contains nothing more than 
several titles and epithets prophetically applied to him, and 
expressive of the character, which he actually sustained. 
The translation may be expressed in the following terms. 

though the words may bear this construction, it does not seem to 
be so natural as the other. 

*The original words ^j> h^j$ literally translated mean, Father of 
the Age. They are rendered by Le Clerc, Pater perpetuus, because, 
as he says, Christ is the perpetual or everlasting father of all, who 
shall believe in his religion. 

Grotius translates them, Pater futuri seculi, and adds, Pater se- 
culi est qui multos post se relicturus sit posteros, et in longum tem- 
pus. This future age is the christian dispensation. Christ was the 
father of this dispensation, in as much as it was established through 
his instrumentality, by the exercise of such powers as were com- 
municated to him by Jehovah, and also to his apostles in such a de- 
gree as to convince men of its truth and authority. Vid. Grot. 
Annotat. in Vet. Test. Tom. ii. p. 18. 



EXPOSITION OF TEXTS OF SCRIPTURE. 



193 



u And his name shall be called Wonderful, Divine Counsel- 
lor, Mighty, Father of the age to come, Prince of Peace." 
These results are drawn, it must be remembered, from the 
critical expositions of trinitarians. 

Even admitting the received translation to be correct, it 
does not prove Christ to be the Supreme God. We have 
already seen, that the title God was often applied to other 
persons by way of distinction besides Christ, even to all to 
"whom the word of God came." It may certainly be giv- 
en, therefore, with great propriety to him, who was appoint- 
ed a special messenger of the counsels and will of Jehovah, 
and who is " exalted above all principality, and power, and 
might, and dominion." Hence, if the name be translated 
God, it cannot be accounted a proof of the supreme divinity 
of Christ. But I do not wish to vindicate this rendering, as 
the voice of criticism is decidedly against it* 

Another text, which you cite, is John i. 1. " In the be- 
ginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and 
the Word was God." 

Before we can have any just conceptions of the meaning 
of this text, or of the introduction to St. John's gospel, we 
must know in what sense he used the term Logos, or Word. 
This term has more than thirty distinct significations in the 
New Testament, and it is obvious, that we cannot interpret 

*In this text the learned Dr. Owen found an argument for the 
htpostatical union. "That the same person^" says he, "should 
be the mighty God, and a child horn, is neither conceivable nor pos- 
sible, nor can be true, but by the union of the divine and human na- 
tures in the same person." Declaration of the Glorious Mystery 
of the Person of Christ, God and Man, p. 290, 208. 

This is the way men reason and build up doctrines, when, as 
bishop Newton -says, "they regard the bare icords more than the 
meaning." They attach meanings to words, which are inconceiv- 
able and impossible, and then invent a scheme to make them con- 
ceivable, possible, and true. 
17* 



194 EXPOSITION OP TEXTS OF SCRIPTURE. 

any passage in which it is contained, without first fixing its 
meaning as it is used in that place. We cannot understand 
language, if we do not know the meaning of the words of 
which it is composed. 

The best mode, perhaps, of ascertaining in what sense the 
evangelists used the word, is to inquire for what purpose he 
wrote his gospel. He tells us, that one of his principle de- 
signs in writing was to prove, that " Jesus is the Christ, the 
Son of the living God." From this declaration, the opin- 
ion would seem to have prevailed in those times, that Jesus 
was not the Christ ; and from many passages in St. John's 
gospel we are led to believe, that it was a special purpose 
with him to correct this and other errors, respecting the na- 
ture and person of Christ. If we can ascertain what these 
errors were, and also what connexion they had with the 
prevalent doctrine of the Logos, we shall have some clue to 
the true interpretation of this passage. 

The Platonic philosophy was at this time very prevalent 
in those countries, where the christian religion was preach- 
ed. It was the doctrine of this philosophy, that the Su- 
preme Being did not create the world, but assigned this 
work to a subordinate being, whom the Platonists called 
Logos. Philo, and the Alexandrian Jews, who embraced 
this philosophy, perceiving some analogy between this use 
of the term, and those passages of the Old Testament, in 
which the Word, or Logos, is personified, fell easily into the 
belief, that the term there used denoted some being. Per- 
sonal properties are often attributed in the Old Testament 
to the word of God. " By the word of the Lord were the 
heavens made." The Word of the Lord is said to come, 
to speak, to go. "His Word runneth very swiftly." It 
was hence inferred, that the Word of God, so often men- 



EXPOSITION OF TEXTS OF SCRIPTURE. 195 

tioned in the Old Testament, was a being distinct from God, 
and the same as the Logos of Plato. * 

Another opinion somewhat analogous to this, in many- 
respects, had its origin in the Oriental philosophy. Those 
who embraced this system were called Gnostics. They 
maintained, that there was but one Supreme Mind, but from 
this was derived, by a sort of emanation, a vast number of 

'* Before St. John wrote his gospel, Philo had written largely on 
the Platonic philosophy. As he was a Jew, and well versed in 
the philosophy of the east, he seems to have combined some of the 
peculiarities of these two systems. He has a great deal to say about 
the Logos, and what is particularly worthy of observation, he per- 
sonifies it under different characters, and applies it sometimes to 
men, sometimes to angels, and at others to God himself. 

Eum (?.oyov) aQxayys?.ov Philo nominat. Vid. Kuinoel. Prolego- 
mera ad Evang. Iohan, §7; De loyw Iohannis. Philo omnes Dei 
or atores,et legato s vocare solet ?.oyovg. Rosenmull. Schol. in Johan. 
chap. i. v. 1. 

As it was common in the time of St. John to personify the Logos, 
and apply it as a name to persons or beings sustaining different char- 
acters, he did not depart from the customary use of language in 
employing the word after a similar manner. 

There are many instances of this personification in the gospels 
and epistles. " He that rejecteth me, and receivith not my words, 
hath one that judgeth him ; the word (Logos) which I have spoken, 
the same shall judge him in the last day." John xii. 48. Here the 
Logos is made a judge. " The Logos of God is quick and powerful," 
or more properly, "alive and active." Heb. iv. 12. " The word 
(Loo-os) which God sent unto the children of Israel, preachin > peace 
by Jesus Christ; he (this Logos) is lord over all." Acts x. 36. 
Here the Logos is said to preach, and to be lord over all. In all 
these places Logos evidently means the gospel, or the christian doc- 
trine ; but still, it is represented as a person. For other examples, 
and a comparison between the use of the word by Philo, and the 
writers of the New Testament,see Jones's Ecclesiastical Researches, 
chap. vi. 



196 EXPOSITION OF TEXTS OF SCRIPTURE. 

subordinate intelligences, or iEons, of various orders. To 
one of these beings they gave the name of Logos * 

Out of these notions sprang up many errors in regard to 
the nature and character of Christ. The Gentile converts, 
who were generally Platonists, delighted in discovering re- 
semblances between their philosophy and the christian reli- 
gion, and among others they fancied Christ to be an inter- 
mediate being, and the same as their Logos. 

For a similar reason the Gnostics believed Christ to be 
one of the highest orders of iEons ; and, as it was a doc- 
trine of this sect, that matter was the source of evil, they 
rejected the humanity of Christ, alleging that no pure intel- 
ligence, like him, could possibly be confined in so unworthy 
and contaminating a habitation as a corporeal body. They 
maintained, that his visible body was a phantom, and that 
he died and arose from the dead only in appearance. 

The errors of the Cerinthians, a sect of considerable note in 
the first century, seem to have taken their rise in these false 
notions of the Logos, and of intermediate beings. They 
taught, that Christy and Jesus, were two distinct beings, or 
persons. They supposed Christ to be an iEon, or emanation 
from the Supreme Being, who descended upon Jesus in the 
form of a dove at the time of his baptism. Before this 
union, they supposed Jesus to have been nothing more than 

* There are also strong evidences, in many parts of St. John's 
gospel, drawn from other circumstances besides what he says of 
the Logos, that he often had in view the Gnostics. He uses many 
of the terms, which had become technical in their philosophy, and 
probably to correct the errors, to which they had given currency 
by an improper use of them. Among these terms are iioroysv>i<;, 
%aqig, t(ot], (pwg, aXyjQsia, nlr^wiia. Kuinoel. Proiegom. § 5. De 
ConsilioJohanni in scribendis Comment, proposito. There can be 
little doubt, that in some places at least, he used the words Light 
and Life with this applicatton. Jones's Ecclesiastical Researches, 
chap, xviii. 



EXPOSITION OF TEXTS OF SCRIPTURE. 



197 



a common man. When he was taken to be crucified, the 
divine being, called Christ, left him, and the man Jesus only 
died and rose from the dead.* 

Such were the opinions concerning the Logos , and such 
the errors which were growing out of them at the time when 
St. John wrote. To one or other of these philosophical 
sects, it must be remembered, almost all the early christian 
converts belonged before their conversion. The apostle must, 
therefore, have considered it a matter of the utmost impor- 
tance to purify a fountain, which threatened to contaminate 
and poison the whole scheme of christian doctrine. If this 
system were pursued, Christianity was likely to become in- 
grafted into the wildest systems of heathanism. The root 
of the difficulty lay in the ideal and false notions, which 
prevailed respecting the personal existence of the Logos, 
acting in the character of an intermediate being,distinct from 
God and from men. There can be little doubt, that the 
principal purpose of St. John, in what he has said of the 
Logos , was to remove this difficulty, and to clear up a sub- 
ject, which the unnatural mixture of heathen philosophy 
with Christianity had tended to perplex and obscure. 

If we keep these things in mind, it will not be difficult to 
perceive what he designed to teach in his doctrine of the 
Logos. We may not be able to give an exact definition of 
the term, as it was understood by him, because it may have 
been used to express ideas of the Deity, some of which 
have since passed away with the controversies of those 
times ; yet we can hardly mistake its general application, 
or the object of the writer. He would show, that the 
Logos is not a person, or being, and yet it is something, 
which is with God, and which may be called God. It fol- 
lows, that it must designate some quality, or qualities of 
the Deity, which have always resided in him, by which he 

* Vid. Irensei. adv. Hseres, lib. iii c. 12. ut cit. in Kuinoel. Pro- 
legom. § 5. 



198 EXPOSITION OF TEXTS OF SCRIPTURE. 

has created all things, by which he still manifets himself in 
his works, — such qualities, in short, as make him the Su- 
preme God. It is not of so much importance what name 
we give to these qualities, if we only retain a correct idea 
of their nature. Perhaps we shall not deviate far from the 
true signification of the word Logos, as used by the evan- 
gelist, if we suppose it to denote the power of the Deity 
acting under the guidance of his wisdom. 

With this signification of the term, the interpretation of 
the first part of John's gospel is natural and easy. In the 
beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God ; that 
is, the power of God, aided in its operations by divine 
wisdom, has been with God from the beginning, or always. 
It is not a being, which emanated from the Deity, and which 
exists in a state separate from him. And the Logos was God; 
the qualities of the Deity denoted by the Logos are essential 
to his character as God, and not to be considered as consti- 
tuting any other being. The same was in the beginning with 
God. All things were made by him ; and without him loas 
not any thing made that was made. By the power and wis- 
dom of God was every thing created, and without the ex- 
ercise of this power, and the guidance of this wisdom, was 
not any thing originally made. This was probably said in 
allusion to the doctrine of the Platonists, who believed the 
creation to have been the work of a subordinate agent. 

It thus appears, that this passage, instead of proving 
Christ to be the same as God, or a person equal to God, was 
actually intended to show, that there was no such interme- 
diate being, as was designated by the different sects of that 
period under the name Logos. The work of creation, which 
they assigned to this imaginary being, had no other origin 
than the power and wisdom of God. When this position 
was established, the errors of the Platonists and Gnostics, in 
regard to the character of Christ, would fall of course, be- 
cause they were built on the supposition of the personal ex- 



EXPOSITION OF TEXTS OF SCRIPTURE. 199 

istence of the Logos. When the evangelist says, near the 
close of his gospel, that he has written to prove, " that 
Jesus is the Christ," he obviously alludes to the sect of 
Cerinthians, by whom this was denied. 

It is to be observed, also, that if in this passage he in- 
tended to declare Christ to be God, it is very strange that 
he should say one object of his writing was to prove him to 
be the Son of God. Moreover, if by the Logos here we 
are to understand the person of Christ, how could it be said 
to be from the beginning with God, and to be God, unless 
there were from the beginning two distinct Deities, and that 
these two were one ? No mode of explanation, which 
makes the Logos a person existing from eternity, can be free 
from this inconsistency and contradiction.* 

Luke i. 16, 17. " And many of the children of Israel 
shall he turn to the Lord their God ; and he shall go before 
him in the spirit and power of Elias." 

It is said, that by " the Lord their God" in this place is 
meant Christ ; but there is nothing in the passage itself, nor 
in any part of the message of the angel to Zacharias, from 
which such an inference can with any propriety be made. 
To go before God means to walk in his presence, or his sight, 
and is a common phraseology in the New Testament. | 

* For a lucid and comprehensive view of this subject, see pro- 
fessor Nortons's Statement of Reasons, &c. p, 55. Kuinoe], in his 
Prolegomena to the gospel of St. John, brings together the various 
opinions, which have been entertained concerning the Logos, and 
the design of the evangelist in writing his gospel. Priestly ! s Hist. 
of Early opinions, vol. i. and ii. Book 2, chap. i. Lindsey's Sequel, 
p. 129. Clerici Adnotatione3 in Johan. cap. i. 

t The phrase svwmov 0sov often occurs, and it almost universally 
means in the presence of God, or in the sight of God. " For he shall 
be great (srwrciov Oeov) in the sight of the Lord." Luke i. 15. 
The most prominent signification of TTQotQxouai is to advance, to 
proceed, (vid. Heder. in voc.) and it is used in this sense, Matth. 
xxvi. 39. Mark xiv. 35. Acts xii. 10. Wakefield renders the pas- 
sage, " And he will lead the way in the sight of God." 



200 EXPOSITION OF TEXTS OF SCRIPTURE. 

John xx. 28. "And Thomas answered and said unto him, 
my Lord, and my God." There have been different opin- 
ions on this text. Some have supposed that Thomas meant 
to address Christ as the Supreme God ; others, that his 
language was only an exclamation expressing his surprise 
on finding that Christ had in reality risen from the dead, 
which, a short time before, he had declared he could not 
believe. It is thought by others, that the address was 
made directly to Christ, but not in the character of the Su- 
preme Being. In the midst of his surprise at the wonder- 
ful event, which had happened, and of the reality of which 
he was convinced by the sadden appearance of Christ, 
Thomas addressed him in the exclamation contained in the 
text. He was his Lord and his God, in the same sense 
as the Jewish magistrates were Lords and Gods over those, 
whom they instructed and governed ; and in the same sense 
which Peter would convey, when he said to the Jews, 
" God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, 
both Lord and Chirst.* 

It was not the office of John the Baptist to turn men to Christ, 
but to God, whose counsels and laws they had forsaken ; and to 
prepare them for receiving the religion, which he was about to 
communicate through his Son. " They greatly err," says Wolzo- 
gen., " who suppose John was to turn the people to Christ, and 
hence infer, that he is the Supreme God. They could not be turned 
to Christ, because they had not forsaken or receded from him ; but 
it was important that they should be turned to God, that they might 
be the better prepared to have faith in Christ." Vid. Wolzog. Com- 
ment, in Loc. Opera, Tom. i. p. 525 

* This last mode of interpretation is adopted by Slichtingius, 
Crellius, Kuinoel, and Rosenmuller. See their Commentaries on 
this text. Dr. Carpenter gives a similar explanation, and con- 
siders Thomas as expressing his conviction of the divine authority 
of Jesus, which he had before doubted. Carpenter's View, &c. 
p. 149. 

Dr. Kenrick thinks the words of Thomas were only an excla- 
mation, " the effect of sudden surprise and astonishment, to find 



EXPOSITION OF TEXTS OF SCRIPTURE. 201 

Slichtingius has well observed, that the great surprise 
manifested by Thomas on this occasion, instead of affording 
any proof of the general belief of the apostles in the proper 
deity of Christ, is a strong argument to the contrary. Had 
Thomas believed Christ to be God, it could give him no 
surprise to know, that he had risen from the dead. He must 
have supposed that all things were possible with him, and 
when he was convinced of the remarkable fact of his resur- 
rection, he could feel no astonishment. 

It has been remarked by Grotius, bishop Pearce, and 
others, that this is the only instance in which Christ is ad- 
dressed by any of his disciples under the title of God. In 
this fact, every one should see a strong presumptive argu- 
ment, that Thomas in this place did not intend to address 
him as the eternal God ; especially, since the words will re- 
ceive, without force to the language, an interpretation per- 
fectly consistent with every other part of the scriptures. If 
the disciples believed Christ to be God, why had they 
never called him so before, when they saw his miracles and 
astonishing works, which could only be done by a divine 
agency ? 

Acts xx. 28. " Take heed, therefore, unto yourselves, 
and to all the flock over which the Holy Spirit hath made 
you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath 
purchased with his own blood." 

This text was formerly considered very strong in favor 
of the deity of Christ, but it seems now to be very general- 

the person, whom he felt and handled, to be raised from the dead." 
Exposition, vol. ii. p. 610. This was the opinion of Wolzogen, 
Dr. Lardner, Dr. Whitby, Mr. Lindsey, and also of archbishop 
Neweome, if We may judge from his note on the passage in his 
Translation of the New Testament. 

Bishop Pearce paraphrases it, " I own thee now to be Jesus the 
Christ, and as such my Lord and my God." Comment, in loc. 
18 



202 EXPOSITION OF TEXTS OF SCRIPTURE. 

ly given up by all learned trinitarians. No question re- 
mains, that the present rendering, church of God, is incor- 
rect. Kuinoel says, " the true reading, beyond all doubt, 
is church of the Lord, and this has been adopted by Grotius, 
Wetstein, Le Clerc, Griesbach, and all the most skilful crit- 
ics of the present age."* Some manuscripts read Christ, 
but there is much the highest authority for Lord. The 
idea of the blood of God is so shocking, that it must be 
grateful to every breast, that the received translation of this 
text, the only one in scripture in which such an idea is ad- 
vanced, should be found to be so entirely without founda- 
tion. | 

Rom. ix. 5. " Whose are the fathers, and of whom, as 

* Comment, in Act. Apostol. p. 679. 

t After the most laborious researches, Griesbach says, the read- 
ing of &bov (God) is not supported by a single ancient or valuable 
manuscript ; and concludes, Quae omnia cum ita sint, non possu- 
mus caeteris lectionibus non prsferre y.voiov. See the note to this 
text in his second edition. — Also Le Clerc's Ars Crit. vol. ii. p. 
93, et Adnot. in loc. — Vero lectio videtur esse rov y.vqiov. Rosen- 
mul. inloc. — Mor us, after a comparison of various authorities, comes 
to the same conclusion, although he loses no opportunity in other 
places to support the deity of Christ. Vid. Mori Versionem et 
Explicationem Act. Apost. p. 515. Even Dr. Nares admits the same, 
although with no apparent good will. Remarks on the Improved 
Version of the New Testament, second edit. p. 220. 

Bishop Pearce adopts the same reading in his commentary on 
this passage, and archbishop Newcome has received it into his 
text. 

It is remarkable enough, that modern trinitarians have defended, 
as part of scripture, a form of language, which Athanasius him- 
self condemned as an invention of the Arians. " Our scriptures," 
says he, " no where mention the blood of God. Such daring ex* 
pressions belong only to Arians." Ovdauov Ss alua @sov y.a^ (««c 
7taqa8i.6oir.aaiv at yqaipaL, Jtqtiav&v t« ToiavTa ro/.utjuara. Atha- 
nas. cont. Apollin. apud Wetsten. in loc. 



EXPOSITION OF TEXTS OF SCRIPTURE. 203 

concerning the flesh, Christ came, who is over all, God 
blessed for ever." 

These words admit of different interpretations by varying 
the punctuation. They may be pointed ss follows ; " of 
whom, as concerning the flesh, Christ came, who is over 
all. God be blessed for ever.' 5 Christ is over all things 
by the appointment of the Father, as it is expressed in 1 
Cor. xv. 27. " He hath put all things under his feet. But 
when he saith, all things are put under him, it is manifest 
that he is excepted, which did put all things under him.' 5 
This text is a decisive proof, that whatever dignity Christ 
possessed by the appointment of the Father, it is very far 
from making him equal with God. 

Others prefer a different punctuation, and translate the 
passage as follows ; " He, who is over all, God, be blessed 
for ever," or " God, who is over all, be blessed for ever." 
This is the translation of Mr. Locke.* Either of these 
renderings is admissible, and when it is understood, that 
the original was written without any punctuation, it will 
be seen, that no improper liberty is taken in making this 
conform to what is conceived to be the general sense of the 
passage. This is the only rule, in fact, which can be fol- 
lowed. 

If Christ were intended to be called God in this place, 
there is one reason in the passage itself, why the title can- 
not denote the Supreme God. He is spoken of as having 
descended from the Jews according to the fleshy and in this 
character, even according to the trinitarian hypothesis, he 
certainly could not be considered God the Father. 

The apostle is here enumerating the privileges of the 
Jews, one of which was, that they were descended from 
the patriarchs, and another, that the Messiah had arisen in 

* See Locke's Paraphrase and Notes on the Epistles of St. Paul, 
p. 372* Wetstein inclines to the same interpretation. Vid. in loc. 



204 EXPOSITION OF TEXTS OF SCRIPTURE. 

their nation. For these privileges, by which, through di- 
vine favor, they had been so remarkably distinguished, God, 
the author of all, was to be blessed for ever.* 

1 Tim. iii. 16. " And without controversy great is the 
mystery of godliness, God was manifest in the flesh, justi- 
fied in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gen- 
tiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory. 

Instead of God in this text, a great number of manu- 
scripts of the highest authority read he who, and several 
others of less value read tvhich. According to this last 
reading the sense will be, great is the mystery of godliness, 
which was manifest in the flesh. This is preferred by many 
trinitarian writers, as well as others. 

But since the learned and laborious researches of Gries- 
bach, the second reading has been the most generally adopt- 
ed by critics. After patiently examining and comparing 
all the manuscripts and authorities, which are considered of 
any value, he says, that those laws of criticism, which have 
been established by the common consent of the most learn- 
ed critics, require the reading in this place to be who, or he 
who."\ In conformity with this result he has inserted it 
into his text ; and although archbishop Newcome does not 

* Dr. Taylor supposes the whole to relate to the privileges of the 
Jews, and as it was one of their greatest privileges, that God was 
peculiarly their God, he prefers the following translation ; " Whose 
are the fathers, and of whom, as concerning the flesh is Christ, 
whose is the God over all blessed for ever." Note in loc. The con- 
nexion and sense here are extremely natural, and although this 
translation is founded on the conjectural emendation of Slichtin- 
gius, (wv o for o mv) it is by no means improbable, that it maybe the 
true one. Vid. Slicht. Comment, in loc. Mr. Jones agrees with 
Dr. Taylor. See Analysis of the Epistles to the Romans, p, 114. 

t Postulabant enim hoc leges critica? — quas doctissimi critici suo 
assensu comprobarunt. Vid. Not. in loc, edit, secund, 



EXPOSITION OF TEXTS OF SCRIPTURE. 205 

introduce it into his translation, he has placed it in the 
margin.* 

Thus corrected, the passage may be explained as follows ; 
Great is the mystery of godliness. He who was manifest in 
the flesh ; that is, who dwelt among men, humbled himself, 
and submitted to the sufferings incident to human life ; — 
was justified by the spirit;^ was vindicated in declaring him- 
self to be the Messiah sent from God, by the gifts of the 
Holy Spirit, which he possessed in so high a degree, and 
which were conferred so abundantly on many of his fol- 
lowers ; — was seen of angels ^ or messengers ;J of those per- 

* " Ml the old versions," says Doct. Clarke, (Doct. of Trin. No. 
88, 89,) " have who or which. And all the ancient fathers, though 
the copies of many of them have it now in the text itself Osog, God; 
yet from the tenor of their comments upon it, and from their never 
citing it in the Arian controversy, it appears that they always read 
it of, who, or 6, which." See Improv. Vers, fourth edition, note. 

t Rosenmuller has remarked, that spirit here may signify the 
christian doctrine, as in other places. In this case it would mean, 
that the nature of this doctrine, and its success among men, justify 
Christ in professing himself to be the Son of God. Rosenmul. in 
loc. et Schleusn. in verb, tcvbvu. 17. 

The proper rendering is bxj, and not in the spirit, as the context 
plainly indicates. By a Hebraism, tv is put for dia per. Vorstius 
de Hebrais. cap. xiv.§ 4. 

t The same word, which is here rendered angels, is often trans- 
lated messengers, which is evidently its meaning in this place. John 
the Baptist is called an angel or messenger. Luke vii. 27. "Be- 
hold, I send my messenger (ayyeZov uov, my angel,) before thy 
face." ix. 52. Jesus " sent messengers (aXXuXovg angels) before 
his face ; and they went and entered into a city of Samaria to make 
ready for him." On this part of the text, Macknight remarks as 
follows, — " Was seen of angels, that is, of the apostles, and of the 
other witnesses, who were appointed to publish and testify his res- 
surrection to the world " Aliis a?.?.syoi hoc loco sunt ajpostoli; illis 
enim Christus in vitam redux ssepius apparuit, ut essent testes res- 
urrectionis. Rosenmul. 
IS* 



205 EXPOSITION OF TEXTS OF SCRIPTURE'. 

sons, who were to be the messengers of his gospel, and to 
bear witness to the truth of his resurrection ; — was preach- 
ed to the Gentiles; his religion was promulgated among 
all nations, Gentiles as well as Jews ; — was believed on in 
the world ; his doctrine was embraced, and he was believed 
to be the Messiah ; — was received up in glory ; his ascen- 
sion was marked with manifestations of glory,* 

The sense of the text will be the same, if the present 
reading be retained, provided the word God be consid- 
ered a title of Christ in a sense, in which we have already 
seen it is frequently used. But if you suppose this title to 
denote the Supreme Being, it will be impossible to give any 
consistent or rational explanation of the passage. How can 
the eternal God, who is every where present, be said to re- 
side in a human body ? The being, who is here mentioned, 
had been raised from the dead ; but how can such language 
be applied to the living God, " who only hath immortality ?" 
How could the Almighty Father, " Who dwelleth in light 
inaccessible," be " received up in glory ?" Such are the 
inconsistences of this text, if you attempt to interpret it 
on the supposition, that the being of whom it speaks is the 
Supreme God. And since those principles of interpreta- 
tion, by which we determine the true reading of any part 
of scripture, do not warrant such a supposition, and the 
sense of the text is decidedly against it, why should it be 
admitted ? 

Heb. i. S. " But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O 
God, is forever and ever." 

This is a quotation from the Psalms, (Ps. xlv. 6.) in 
which place it is supposed by many to have been applied 
by the Psalmist to Solomon. Such was the opinion ox arch- 

* The original is e* <5<>^;,, in or with glory. Receptus est in gloria , 
id est cum gloria, seu gloriose, per Hebraismum in pro cum posito, 
Crellii Comment, Tom. ii. p. 19. 



EXP10STI0N OF TEXTS OF SCRIPTURE. 207 

bishop Newcome. But of whatever person it may have 
been spoken in the Psalms, it is evidently quoted here in 
reference to Christ, and we are told by Wetstein, that it was 
generally understood by the Jews to relate to the Messiah. 
Yet the Jews never expected their Messiah to be the Su- 
preme God, and it is evident, that the apostle does not in- 
tend to signify, by this quotation, the nature of Christ, but 
the dignity of his office. For in the very next verse he 
speaks of God, as a distinct being from Christ. " Thou hast 
loved righteousness and hated iniquity ; therefore God, even 
thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above 
thy fellows." If we apply the first part of the quotation to 
Christ, we must apply this likewise. But here he is said 
to have been annointed by his god ; and he could not him- 
self be the same God by whom he was anointed. If he is 
intended, therefore, in this text to be called God, it must be 
in an inferior sense ; unless there are two Gods, and these 
two are one. 

It has been further observed by Grotius, Erasmus, Clarke, 
and others, that both the Hebrew and Greek of this passage 
admit a different translation. The grammatical construction 
of both these languages would seem to require it to be ren- 
dered as follows ; " But concerning the Son he saith, God 
is thy throne for ever and ever ;" that is, God is the support 
of thy kingdom. This explanation, perhaps, is preferable 
to the other, but it cannot with any consistency be argued 
from either of them, that Christ is the eternal God. # 

2 Peter, i. 1. " Through the righteousness of God, and 
our Saviour Jesus Christ." 

You do not quote this text from the Bible, but from Jones 

*"But concerning the Son," (nnog rov viov.) Lindsey's Seq.p. 
207. "But of the Son." Wakefield. See also Viger De Grasc. 
Diet. Idiotismis, c. ix. § 8. De Prsep nqog. 

r O Qqovogoov 6 Osog sig rov ociojva rov aitovog. Septuag. 



208 EXPOSITION OF TEXTS OF SCRIPTURE. 

on the trinity, and according to the following arrangement, 
namely, " Through the righteousness of our God and Sa- 
viour Jesus Christ." You have not told your readers, why 
you choose to deviate thus from the English translation. 
Although in the original there is an ambiguity in a few texts 
similar to this, and some room for doubt respecting the po- 
sition and force of the Greek article ; yet in the present in- 
stance there seems to be no possibility of being misled. 
The words which follow are so explicit, as not to admit of 
any uncertainty in the interpretation. " Grace and peace 
be multiplied unto you, through the knowledge of God, and 
of Jesus our Lord." v. 2. Are not God and the Saviour 
spoken of here as two distinct beings ? And why should we 
desire to force the words of the first verse into a meaning, 
which is in direct contradiction to the plain sense of the se- 
cond ? 

It is no part of my design to enter into the tangled con- 
troversy about the Greek article. It the doctrine of the 
trinity, or of the unity, be suspended by so slender a thread 
as this, we may as well let it break at once, as attempt to 
strengthen it. To write books about the construction of 
one or two Greek letters, in half a dozen texts of the New 
Testament, and to marshal out arguments from this construc- 
tion in support of the proper deity of Christ, must show a la- 
mentable want of evidence from more certain and more valu- 
able sources. Such a course could never have been taken, 
except as a last resort. When we recollect, especially, how 
innumerable have been the blunders and omissions of trans- 
cribers, both accidental and designed, and how likely these 
would be to occur in the use of the article, we cannot but 
wonder, that men should waste their time, and torture their 
invention, in building up arguments with materials so shad- 
owy and fragile. The inquiry, as a branch of criticism, is 
not without value. Its results may serve to illustrate points 



EXPOSITION OF TEXTS OF SCRIPTURE. 209 

of minor consideration, and aid in settling correct principles 
of criticism ; but when an important doctrine of christian 
faith is propped up by them, it may indeed be said to have 
a feeble support. 

It is furtheimore undeniable, that every passage, in which 
the construction of the article is supposed to be an argument 
in favor of the trinity, is in the original ambiguous. With- 
out deviating from grammatical strictness, it will admit of a 
different interpretation. Take for example Tit. ii. 13, 
"The glorious appearing of the great God, and our Saviour 
Jesus Christ." It stands thus in our common version, but 
it is not denied, that the grammatical construction will allow 
it to be rendered in the following manner ; " the glorious ap- 
pearing of our great God, and Saviour Jesus Christ." In 
several texts there is a similar ambiguity. But after all, 
there is no danger of mistaking the sense. It may justly be 
doubted, whether in a single passage of this description, 
grammatically rendered, any person, who had not been bias- 
ed by previous impressions, could be led for a moment to 
suspect from them, that Jesus and God are one and the same 
being- It would never occur to him, that the two names 
were not intended to represent two beings. Every just 
rule of interpretation would require us to explain such am- 
biguous passages, according to the plain sense of other parts 
of scripture ; and since we are told in terms, which do not 
admit of but one meaning, that there is one Lord, and one 
God and Father of all, and that this God is the God of our 
Lord Jesus Christ, we do great violence to the scriptures 
when we make ambiguous phrases speak a contrary lan- 
guage, and attempt to show, that our Lord Jesus Christ is 
himself the same being, whom he expressly calls his God* 

* For an able reply to Mr. Granville Sharp's Remarks on the 
Greek Article, see the Rev. Calvin Winstanley's Vindication of 



210 EXPOSITION OF TEXTS OF SCRIPTURE. 

1 John v. 20. " And we know that the Son of God is 
come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may- 
know him, that is true ; and we are in him, that is true, 
even his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eter- 
nal life." 

It has been said, that the last clause of this text refers to 
Jesus Christ, and that he is here called the true God. But 
such a conclusion must be drawn from an extremely super- 
ficial view of the text itself. Christ is here characterized 
as the son of the true God, and until it can be made out, 
that the Father and the Son are the same individual being, 
no words can more clearly express a distinction between 
them than these. Compare this text with another, in which 
is contained a similar construction. " For many deceivers 
are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus is 
come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist." 
2. John, ver. 7. The same rule of interpretation, which, in 
the former text, will make Jesus to be the true God, will 
here make him to be " a deceiver and an antichrist." But 
if you allow the last clause in each to refer to the remote, 
and not the immediate antecedent, the meaning will be ob- 
vious. The true God is he " that is true," that is, God the 
Father, and not " his Son Jesus Christ ;" in the same way 
as the deceiver is he, who does " not confess, that Jesus 
Christ is come in the flesh." Instead of containing any 
thing favorable to the opinion, that Christ is the Supreme 
God, this text is actualy an argument to the contrary, as it 
speaks of them as two distinct beings, calling one " the true 
God," and the other " the Son of God."* 

certain Passages in the common English Version of the New Tes- 
tament; first American edition, printed at Cambridge, 1819, with 
an Appendix containing Remarks on Dr. Middleton's Treatise. 

* In the criticism of Slichtingius on this text, he says, "It is won- 
derful, that christians should acknowledge the true God, mentioned 



EXPOSITION OF TEXTS OF SCRIPTURE. 211 

I have thus considered all the texts in which it is Gene- 
rally supposed Christ is called God. I have said nothing of 
Matt. i. 23, because the name Emanuel in this text is now 
usually allowed to be a prophetic title, expressive of the 
character, and not of the nature of Christ. This name was 
given by the prophet in conformity with the Hebrew custom 
of giving names. Adonijah means, my Lord is Jehovah; 
Elihu, my God himself; Elijah, God the Lord. There is 
no more reason for inferring, that Christ was the eternal 
God, because Emanuel, the name by which the prophet said 
he should be called, means God with Us, than there is for 
believing Elijah to have been the eternal God, because his 
name means God the Lord. This title was expressive of 

in this place, to be God the Father, and at the same time be so in- 
consistent as to insist, that the pronoun this refers to Jesus Christ, 
the Son of the true God. More especially, since we know, that 
John has again and again distinguished Jesus Christ from the true 
God, as emphatically as he could distinguish a son from his father. 
These christians say, that this true God is at the same time both 
Father and Son. But since God can be only one, it follows, if he 
is both Father and Son, that he is Father of himself, and Son of 
himself. They deny this consequence, and say, that although the 
true God can be only one, yet he consists of a plurality of persons, 
one of which is the Father, and the other the Son. They, who say 
these things, manifestly contradict themselves, and it would be in 
vain to dispute with persons, who have so little regard for the first 
principles of the understanding. I would sooner pray God to give 
them a sound mind, than attempt to dispute with them." Slicht- 
ing. Comment. Tom. ii. p. 417. 

A part of the text might be more correctly rendered in the fol- 
lowing words, " We are in him, that is true, throvgh his Son Jesus 
Christ." Particula in ponitur proper. Slicht. — Ev pro Sin. Vi- 
ger. De Idiotismis, p. 610. For a similar use of this preposition, 
see Rom. x. 8, 9. Eph. iii. 21. Coll. i. 16. 

For other examples in which the relative is not referred to the 
nearest antecedent, see Act. vii. 19. x. 6. 2 Thess. ii. 8, 9. 



212 EXPOSITION OF TEXTS OF SCRIPTURE. 

the character of Christ, as in him God was manifest on 
earth in a remarkable manner by his wisdom and power. 

I have not mentioned 1 John iii. 16, because the words, 
of God, are added by the translators. I would only remark 
on this text, that it shows with what prepossessions king 
James's translators engaged in their important undertaking, 
and the necessity of receiving their translation with great 
caution in any case of doubt or difficulty. They have here 
added a word, which gives a totally different meaning to 
the text, and have acknowledged, by putting it in italics, 
that it is not authorized by the original. If they were so 
much warped by system and previous opinions, as to de- 
viate so glaringly from the original in one instance, we 
cannot be surprised to find a similar tendency in many 
others.* 

In examining these texts we find there is not one, in 
which it is absolutely certain, that the title God is applied 
to christ. And it may be said, without fear of contradiction, 
that in whatever sense this title is used, it is never so 
connected with Christ, as to warrant the inference, by 
any just principles of interpretation, that he is the Su- 
preme God. And it is worthy of remark, that several of 
the most learned and eminent trinitarians have given such 
explanations to the texts here considered, as are conforma- 
ble to the unitarian interpretation. 

Is it not a little singular, that almost every text, in which 
it is supposed Christ is directly called God, should be of so 
doubtful a character ? Does it not give room for suspicion, 
that these texts, in their present form, are by no means the 
purest in the scriptures ? How should it happen, that those 

* The word Qsov of God, is not admitted into the text either by 
Mill, Wetstein, Bengel, or Griesbach. It is found in one manu- 
script only, in the Complut. edit, and Vulgate. Vid. Wetstein and 
Griesbach. 



EXPOSITION OF TEXTS OF SCRIPTURE. 213 

passages, which are thought to be strongest in favor of the 
trinity, have actually the least certainty in regard to their 
original construction, and are the least definite in their 
meaning of any others in the whole Bible ? There is one 
mode, and only one, of explaining this fact. The texts 
themselves have been mutilated and deformed by being 
pressed, from time to time, into a service for which they 
were not originally qualified. But there is enough of their 
primitive simplicity still left, to enable us to detect their fac- 
titious and unnatural parts, and to discover a meaning in 
them honorable to God, and to the Saviour, and conforma- 
ble to the plain sense of scripture. 

II. I am next to consider some of the principal passages, 
in which such properties or powers are ascribed to Christ, 
as it is though could be ascribed only to God, or to a being 
equal to God ; and also some others, which are believed to 
contain general proofs of the doctrine of the trinity. 

John x. 30. " I and my Father are one." 

In another place our Lord explains in what sense he is to 
be understood, as being one with the Father. In a prayer 
for his disciples, he says, " Holy Father, keep, through 
thine own name, those whom thou hast given me, that they 
may be one, as we are. Neither pray I for these alone, but 
for them also, which shall believe on me through their 
word ; that they all may be one, as thou, Father, art in 
me and I in thee, that they also may be one in us ; that the 
world may believe that thou hast sent me. And the glory, 
which thou gavest me, I have given them, that they may he 
one, even as we are one," John xvii. 11, 20. After read- 
ing these texts, it is not possible to mistake his meaning 
when he said, " I and my Father are one." They were 
one, as he and his disciples were one, and as all christians 
are one. They were united in counsel, and purpose, aad 
acted in concert. Christ did u what he saw the Father do." 
19 



214 EXPOSITION OF TEXTS OF SCRIPTURE. 

If this text prove Christ to be God, the others prove the 
same of his disciples.* 

Philip, ii. 6. " Who, being in the form of God, thought it 
not robbery to be equal with God." 

Before we seek for an explanation of this text, it is neces- 
sary to know the object of the apostle, in writing the pas- 
sage from which it is taken. If we examine the preceding 
and following verses, we shall learn, that he is enjoining on 
the Philippians the virtue of humility, and to make his in- 
junctions the more effectual, he reminds them of the exam- 
ple of Christ. It is obvious, therefore, that the text must 
have a sense, which is in conformity with this object, and 
which is indicative of the humility and not of the exaltation 
of Christ. 

This text most trinitarians think a decided proof of the 
deity of Christ. But if this opinion were correct, what 
force or meaning would there be in the apostle's language ? 
Christ is mentioned here as an example of humility, and 
apparently for no other purpose. But was it any evidence 
of humility in him to " think it not robbery to be equal with 
God Vf. The entire inconsistency of these words with the 
context should point out at once the necessity of some bet- 
ter translation. As they stand, they destroy the propriety 
of the apostle's reference to the example of Christ, and 
render the whole passage inapplicable to the purpose for 
which it was evidently intended. 

What are we to understand, in the first place, by the 

* It has been observed, that the original is not st$, one person, 
but Iv, one thing. Hence Calvin says, " The ancients abused this 
text in attempting to prove from it, that Christ is of the same es- 
sence (opoovaov) with the Father, for Christ is not speaking of a 
unity of substance, but of a union, by virture of which, whatsoever 
he did would be confirmed by the Father." Abusi sunt hoc loco 
veteres, &c. Vid. Wolzogen. Oper. Tom. i. p. 992. 



EXPOSITION OF TEXTS OF SCRIPTURE. 215 

form of God ? Most trinitarians suppose it to be the divine 
nature, and as it is applied to Christ, they consider it a dec- 
laration, that he is possessed of this nature, and is essentially 
God. But it is well known, that the word, which is transla- 
ted form, very seldom means, in the original, the nature or 
essence of a thing, but only its external appearance, figure, 
or properties. Besides, if being in the form of God is a proof 
that Christ was actually God, then his being in the form of a 
servant, or slave, is a proof, that he was actually a servant, 
or slave, which we know is not true. Any evidence con- 
tained in the phrase, form of God, is as strong in favor of 
one of these positions, as the other.* 

Hence this mast apply not to the nature, but to the con- 
dition and qualifications of Christ. The form of God in 
which he appeared was the manifestation of divine power 
and wisdom in the miracles he wrought, the instructions he 
communicated, and in all the evidences he gave of the di- 
vinity of his mission. 

Thought it not robbery to be equal with God. It is agreed 
by almost all critics, trinitarian as well as unitarian, that the 
words, equal with God, may be translated with the strictest 
conformity to grammatical construction, as or like God. 
The phrase is thus translated by archbishop Newcome, and 
Dr. Macknight. Allowing the common version to be ad- 
missible, this is thought preferable ; because, if Christ be 

* Hammond says uontpyj is used by good authors pro interna ipsa 
rerum essentia vel forma ; but Le Clerc prefers the interpretation 
of Grotius, and quotes Hesychius, Suidas, Phavorinus and others 
to prove, that it relates to the eternal figure or appearance, and is 
synonymous with ay.wv, stdog, nqoaoyig. Hammond. Adnot. — 
J\loQ(pt} denotat aliquid quod in occulos incurrit, adeoque de Deo 
proprie dici non potest. Wetstein. 



216 EXPOSITION OF TEXTS OF SCRIPTURE. 

equal with God, there must be two Gods equal in power 
and majesty, which is contrary to scripture and reason .* 

Thought it not robbery ; that is, he did not consider this 
resemblance to God as plunder, or a thing which he had 
taken by force. He looked upon it as a free gift, conferred 
by the good pleasure of God. In this consisted his humili- 
ty. He did not exalt himself, or boast of those possessions 
and high endowments, which raised him to a likeness with 
God, as if he had obtained them by his own exertions, but 
he was humble in his station, unassuming in his deport- 
ment, and submitted patiently to many indignities, without 
any ostentatious display of those powers, by which he might 
have secured the admiration, the respect, and obedience of 
the world.-f 

* Wetstein renders ioa 0eo),ut Deus, like God; and in this he is 
allowed by Macknight, who observes, that Whitby "has proved in 
the clearest manner, that iciu is used adverbially by the lxx, to ex- 
press likeness, but not equality.'' See Macknight on this place. 
Instar. Dei. Rosenmul. et Slicht. 

t There is some difficulty in ascertaining the precise meaning of 
uquayi.iog, because it is not used in any other place in the New Tes- 
tament, and probably is not to be found in more than one or two 
instances any where else. It may mean the act of seizing upon 
anything for plunder or booty ; or it may mean the thing seized, 
the plunder , or bootxj itself. That is, it may be used in an active or 
passive sense. The latter is generally thought preferable. It may 
signify, vel rem raptam, vel rem avide diripiendam, el vindicandam. 
Schleusn. in voc. — Wetstein takes it in this sense, and gives as one 
reason, Christus nunquam harpagare curavit, nunquam aliquid ab 
aliquo violenter rapuit. See also Wakefield's Silva Critica, Sect, 
cxlii. For a more full explanation of this text, see Belsham's Calm 
Inquiry, second edit. p. 82. Cappe's Critical Remarks, vol. i. p. 
228. 

Professor Stuart translates this text as follows ; " Who being in 
the condition of God, did not regard his equality with God as an 
object of solicitous desire." He gives as a reason why he renders 
uoo(pt], condition, that this word is sometimes used by metonymy, 



EXPOSITION OF TEXTS OF SCRIPTURE. 217 

With this meaning, which is strictly conformable to the 
original, the text fills up the place in which it stands, and 
preserves harmony in the whole passage. 

Collos. ii. 9. " For in him dwelleth^all the fullness of 
the Godhead bodily." 

The word Godhead means the same as Deity, or God. 

according to Schleusner, for yvoig, or ovoia, nature or essence. But 
to be in the nature of God, is the same thing as to be God himself. 
That this cannot be the meaning of the word in the text, is evident, 
because it is immediately after said, "he made himself of no rep- 
utation," literally, " emptied himself," iavrov exevwoe, or divested 
himself of whatever it was, that made him in the form of God, 
which he could not do, if he were God, or in the nature of God. 
The idea advanced by Professor Stuart, that God might so " veil 
the brightness of his glories," or so yield up a part of his perfec- 
tions, as to be said to " empty himself " of them, and still retain his 
omnipotence, omnipresence, and omniscience unimpaired, is one, 
which few persons, probably, will find sufficiently intelligible to be 
understood. Nor does he inform us why he choses, contrary to the 
opinion of the ablest critics, to render ioa 0£w, by the phrase, equali- 
ty with God ; nor has he attempted to explain how one being could 
be said to have equality with another, if one were in the same con- 
dition or nature as the other; or, which is the same thing, if both 
beings constituted the same being. 

But there is something further, connected with Professor Stu- 
art's explanation of this text, which will probably appear not a lit- 
tle strange to most unitarians. He speaks of a version as being 
common among them, which he cites in the following words, name- 
ly, " He did not think of the robbery of being equal with God." 
Letters, p. 95. Where he found this translation is not easy to say, 
but it is certain if he had taken pains to consult many unitarian ex- 
positors, he would never have fallen into so great a mistake, as to 
think it common among them. After a tolerable acquaintance with 
most of the unitarian critical expositors, I have never seen this 
translation in any other place, than Professor Stuart's Letters. 
There are very few unitarians, it is presumed, who will not agree 
in the results of his labored criticism to show, that it does not ac- 
cord with the original. 
19* 



218 EXPOSITION OF TEXTS OF SCRIPTURE. 

What is meant by the fullness of God we can ascertain, by- 
comparing this passage with others. In the preceding chap- 
ter the apostle says, " For it pleased the Father, that in him 
should all fullness dwell." This fulness, then, was some- 
thing, which he had received from the Father, and conse- 
quently was not anything, which he possessed as an inde- 
pendent and self-existent being. In writing to the Ephesi- 
ans the apostle expressed a desire, " that they might be fill- 
ed with all the fullness of God," Eph. iii. 19. If we con- 
sider it an evidence, that Christ was God, because the full- 
ness of God dwelt in him, why should not the same infer- 
ence be drawn in regard to the Ephesians. 

The fullness of God means the abundance of the divine 
wisdom, gifts, and blessings, conferred by him. The apos- 
tle prayed, that these might be multiplied to the Ephesians. 
In Christ they dwelt bodily, that is, really, truly, substantially, 
inasmuch as he was endowed with them in a most eminent 
degree.* 

Trinitarians argue, that certain texts of scripture assign 
to Christ the attributes of the Deity, and hence they infer, 
that he is God. It has been seen in the preceding letter, 
that he asserted, in as positive language as could be used, 
that he possessed these attributes in a limited degree. Did 
he speak contradictions ? Shall we not rather say, that 

* Macknight thinks this text has some allusion to the philoso- 
phical notions of the time in which it was written. The phrase 
■7i?.ijQv>ua 0£ov,fidlness of God, was common among the different 
sects of philosophers. The Gnostics supposed this fullness to be 
made up of iEons ; the Jews, of angels ; and the heathens, of infe- 
rior deities. By saying that this fullness dwells in Christ bodily, 
the apostle would imply, " that the philosophy, which represents 
angels as greater in power and knowledge than Christ, is false." 
Macknight on the Epistles, vol. iii. p. 517. 

Ewuariy.wq, bodily, really, truly. Schleus. in voc. Potest hac 
voce signari non corpus, sed essentia. Hammond. Adnot. 



EXPOSITION OF TEXTS OF SCRIPTURE. 219 

texts of less obvious import are to be interpreted by those, 
whose meaning it is impossible not to perceive ? Shall we 
say his knowledge was infinite, when he expressly asserts, 
that he did " not know the day," in which his prophecy 
would come to pass ? Shall we say his power was infinite, 
when he declares repeatedly, that " he could do nothing of 
himself," and that he received all power from the Father ? 
Yet, notwithstanding these assertions, trinitarians insist that 
he was omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent. 

To prove his omniscience they quote Matt. xi. 27. " All 
things are delivered unto me of my Father ; and no man 
knoweth the Son, but the Father ; neither knoweth any 
man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the 
Son will reveal him." It is unaccountable, that this text 
should be cited to prove that Christ has infinite knowledge 
in himself *, when it is said in so many words, that " all things 
are delivered unto him of the Father." Whoever attends 
to the context will find all things here to relate to the gos- 
pel dispensation ; but to whatever this phrase may relate, 
it is used in reference to a knowledge, which Christ did not 
possess of himself, but which he had received from the 
Father. 

John ii. 24. " He knew all men ; and needed not that 
any should testify of man ; for he knew what was in 
man." 

The same divine wisdom, by which he was aided in teach- 
ing so perfect a religion to mankind, enabled him also, as a 
necessary prerequisite, to have a most intimate knowledge 
of human nature. Whence he derived this knowledge, he 
tells us in another place ; for he says, " My Father hath 
taught me," and also, " My doctrine is not mine, but his 
that sent me." He consequently received this knowledge 
of men from the Father. Let such, as do not believe this 
knowledge to have been derived, answer the question, how a 



220 EXPOSITION OF TEXTS OF SCRIPTURE- 

being, who already possessed infinite knowledge, could be 
taught ? 

John xxi. 17. " Lord, thou knowest all things." — So 
also it is said in another place of christians in general. 
1 John ii. 20. " Ye have an unction from the Holy One, 
and ye know all things." It is evident, therefore, if from 
this text we infer the omniscience of the Lord Jesus, we 
must from others infer the same of all christians. 

The omnipotence of Christ is supposed to be proved from 
Phil. iii. 21. "Who shall change our vile body, that it 
shall be fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to 
the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things 
unto himself." Does this text imply any power which 
could not be derived ? We are told in another part of 
scripture, 2 Cor. iv. 14. " that Tie, which raised up the Lord 
Jesus, shall raise us up also by Jesus." 

Hence, whatever change shall be produced in us by the 
Lord Jesus, he can only act by the same power by which he 
was raised. And in regard to his " subduing all things unto 
himself," " it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put 
all things under him." 1 Cor. xv. 27. 

One short declaration of Christ, it should seem, ought to 
be enough to stop any further inquiry into the origin of his 
power. He has said, " / can of mine own self do nothing." 
Why then should we go about to prove a directly contra- 
ry position, that he can of himself do many things ? Sup- 
pose he had power to create worlds ; how small a portion of 
omnipotence would be such a power. " He hath authority 
to execute judgment ;" but does he possess this authority 
in himself? No ; " the father hath given it to him." John 
v. 27. He is " to be the judge of the quick and the dead." 
By his own authority ? No ; he has been ordained of God 
to this office. Acts x. 42. In almost every instance, 
where uncommon power is ascribed to Christ, it is mention- 



EXPOSITION OF TEXTS OF SCRIPTURE. 221 

ed as coming from the Father. And it may be stated with 
confidence, that in all the texts of scripture, in which 
Christ is represented as possessing a high degree of power 
or knowledge, these possessions are either referred imme- 
diately to God, as a distinct being from Christ, or may be 
considered as proceeding from him, without any violation 
of the natural construction, and obvious meaning of the 
language. 

Jesus is supposed to be omnipresent, because he told his 
disciples, " where two or three are gathered together in my 
name, there am I in the midst of them." Matt, xviii. 20. 
" And, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the 
world." xxviii. 20. The presence of Christ mentioned 
here, cannot be his personal presence, because we know he 
ascended up into heaven. He promises that wherever his 
followers shall be gathered together in his name, or for re- 
ligious purposes, their prayers and services shall be accom- 
panied with all the good effects, which could flow from them, 
if he were present, or which his religion is calculated to 
produce. He was with his disciples in the miraculous 
powers which they possessed, " till the end of the world,", 
that is, till the end of the age, or of the Jewish polity. 
During this period he aided them by the Comforter, which 
he had promised. This was the apostolic age, after which, 
miracles and supernatural powers ceased. But if you take 
these texts in their most extended literal sense, a sense in 
which they are received by very few critics, the most you 
can infer from them is, that Christ has the power of know- 
ing, of aiding by his influences, and of conferring blessings 
on his followers. This is very far from proving him to be 
present throughout the universe.* 

* The end of the icorld means, for the most part, in the gospels, 
the end of the Jeioish dispensation. Bishop Pearce explains the 
present passage thus; " I am viith you always, that is, to assist you 



222 EXPOSITION OF TEXTS OF SCRIPTURE. 

Eternal existence is also said to belong to Christ. John 
viii. 58. " Before Abraham was I am." This text is 
quoted by trinitarians, but for what reason it is not easy to 
perceive, for Christ might have existed before Abraham, 
and still not have existed from eternity. So far as eternal 
existence is concerned, therefore, or equality of the Son 
with the Father, it proves nothing. 

Col. i. 17. " He is before all things." This undoubtedly 
means, that he is exalted above all other beings ; he is 
superior in dignity and excellence to all things. If you 
suppose the text to have reference to time, it will afford no 
proof that he existed from eternity ; but only that he was 
the first created being. He is called the " first-born of 
every creature," which is an evidence, that he was a ere- 
ated being, and must have derived his existence from God. 

Heb. xiii. 8. u Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, to-day, 
and for ever." That is, the doctrine of Jesus Christ will 
always remain unchanged. This is the interpretation of 
Dr. Clarke, and Whitby, as well as of Le Clerc, Calvin, 
archbishop Newcome, and other trinitarians.* It is not 
uncommon in the scriptures for the name Christ to be put 
for the doctrine, or religion, of Christ. Acts v. 42. " They 
ceased not to teach and preach Jesus Christ," that is, the 

in teaching all nations all things, and by enabling you to work mir- 
acles in confirmation of your doctrine ; — even unto the end of the 
world, that is, to the end of the age, or the end of the Jewish age." 
He further says, in his commentaries on Matt. xxiv. 3, " The end 
of the age, that is, of the age in which the Jewish church and state 
were to last." This is also the rendering of archbishop Newcome. 
The vulgate has it, usque ad consumrnationem seculi. See also 
Kenrick's Exposition. 

* " The evangelical doctrine, as delivered by Chirst and his apos- 
tles." See Newcome's note in the Improved Vers. Eadem ilia doc- 
trina, &c. Hammond Adnot. edit. Clerici. 



EXPOSITION OF TEXTS OF SCRIPTURE. 223 

doctrine of Christ. Eph. iv. 20. " Ye have not so learned 
Christ," that is, his doctrine. 

Rev. i. 17. "lam the first and the last." Whoever it 
was, that spoke these words, it certainly could not be the 
ever living God, for in the very next verse he continues to 
say, " I am he that liveth, and was dead.'''' For any being 
to be called the first and last, therefore, does not necessarily 
imply, that he is God. Rev. xxii. 13. "I am Alpha and 
Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last." 
It is inferred from this text, that the person speaking could 
be no other than God. But look back in the same chapter 
to the ninth verse, and you will find the messenger, who 
spoke these words, rebuking John for " falling down to 
worship before his feet," and saying to him, " that thou do 
it not ; for I am thy fellow servant, and of thy brethren the 
prophets, and of them which keep the sayings of this book ; 
worship God." Could this be the eternal God, who told 
John, that he was his fellow servant, and who refused to 
receive worship from him ? We hence see, that these epi- 
thets, or titles, if they are to be applied to Christ, so far 
from proving him to be God, were actually given to a per- 
son, or being, who had died, who declared himself to be a 
fellow servant with John, and who would not suffer himself 
to be worshipped. What precise meaning is to be taken 
from the phrases Alpha and Omega, the first and the last, it 
is not necessary for our present purpose to inquire, since 
the context proves, that they cannot afford even a shadow 
of evidence in favor of the supreme divinity of Christ. As 
it is impossible they should denote the one true God, since 
God cannot die, it seems most rational to consider them as 
relating to the christian dispensation. Of this dispensation, 
Christ was the first and the last ; it was begun and finished 
by him ; it was entirely his work. 

Another argument for the supreme divinity of Christ, 



224 EXPOSITION OF TEXTS OF SCRIPTURE. 

trinitarians find in certain texts of scripture, in which they 
say he is made the object of worship. The strength of this 
argument rests on the scriptural meaning of the word wor- 
ship , and of those terms and phrases in which worship is 
supposed to be implied. If this same word, and these same 
terms are applied to other persons besides Christ, then the ap- 
plication of them to him can be no proof of his being God. A 
little examination will show this to be the fact. And it is 
believed, that in every text in which it is thought worship 
or honor is rendered to Christ, a proper understanding of 
the context will convince any fair mind, that the person 
writing, or speaking, did not consider himself addressing 
Christ as God. 

When we remember, also, how explicit our Lord was in 
his directions about worshipping the Father, and him only, 
we ought to be very cautious how we allow ourselves to 
violate his express command, and ascribe to any other being 
that reverence, and those honors, which belonged to the 
Father alone. He was positive in his commands to his fol- 
lowers, that they should worship the Father ; he always 
worshipped the Father, nor has he in a single instance in- 
timated, that divine worship is to be rendered to himself, 
or to the Holy Spirit. And if we allow him to be the angel, 
mentioned in Revelations, conversing with John, he there 
not only renews his command to " worship God," but im- 
plies in strong language, that he himself is not to be wor- 
shipped. Now since every text of scripture will admit of a 
natural and fair explanation, on the principle of rendering 
divine worship to the Father only, is it not much more con- 
sistent with just rules of interpretation, thus to explain them, 
than to press them into the support of a doctrine totally at 
variance with one of the plainest and most positive injunc- 
tions of our Saviour ? If we worship Christ, we do not 
worship the Father only ; and if we do not worship the 
Father only, we violate a command of the gospel. 



EXPOSITION OF TEXTS OF SCRIPTURE. 225 

The word worship does not always signify religious reve- 
rence, bat sometimes civil homage or respect. " The kino- 
Nebuchadnezzar fell on his face, and worshipped Daniel." 
Dan. ii. 46. " And all the congregation bowed their heads, 
and worshipped the Lord and the king," 1 Chron. xxix. 20. 
" And so it was, when he came to David, that he fell on the 
earth, and did obeisance," (woshipped him.) 2 Samuel i. 2. 
" And all the kins^s servants that were in the king's sate, 
bowed and reverenced (worshipped) Haman ; but Mordecai 
bowed not, nor did him reverence," (nor worshipped him.) 
Esther iii. 2. The servant, in the parable of the talents, is 
represented as having worshipped his master. Matt, xviii. 
26. " As Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him and fell 
down at his feet, and worshipped him." Acts x. 25. Ex- 
amples of a similar kind are exceedingly numerous in the 
Old Testament. From these it appears, that kings, and 
other men in eminent stations, were worshipped. It fol- 
lows, that the same kind of reverence shown to Christ, is 
not a proof of his having been God.* 

It is said of Christ, Matt. viii. 2. " There came a leper 
and worshipped him," literally, bowed down he/ore him, or ac- 
cording to the custom of the country, showed him a peculiar 

* The word rendered worship is jrQooxvraa. It occurs nearly 
two hundred times in the septuagint version of the Old Testament, 
and is sometimes translated icorslup, at others reverence, and 
obeisance, but most commonly to boic down. When the sons of 
the prophets came out to meet Elisha, " they bowed themselves 
to the ground before him," literally, they icorshipped him on the 
ground. 2 Kings ii. 16. The word derives its signification from 
the eastern custom of prostration in token of submission to a sove- 
reign or prince. It came at length to denote a mode of salutation, 
or of showing respect to a superior, and in this sense is very com- 
monly used in the New Testament. We can determine when it 
mean religious adoration, only from the connexion in which it is 
used. 

20 



226 EXPOSITION OF TEXTS OF SCRIPTURE. 

mark of reverence and respect, as Cornelius afterwards 
showed to Peter. The same may be said " of a certain 
ruler who came and worshipped him." ix. 18. After he had 
walked on the sea and stilled the winds, " they that were in 
the ship came and worshipped him," but not as God, for 
they immediately after say, " Of a truth thou art the Son of 
God," xiv. 33. They manifested towards him that reve- 
rence and submission, which, as the messenger of God, he 
ought to receive. 

Certain passages of scripture are supposed by some to af- 
ford an evidence, that prayers were offered to Christ, because 
mention is made in them of calling on his name. But this is 
an erroneous interpretation of the phrase. Calling on the 
name of the Lord Jesus does not signify the act of address- 
ing him with prayers or supplications. Acts ii. 21. u Who- 
soever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved." 
Now whether this text refers to God, or to the Lord Jesus, it 
is evident that it cannot allude to the simple exercise of 
prayer or worship, because no one can suppose, that by this 
alone salvation can be procured. Calling on the name of the 
Lord must mean, in this place, a sincere discharge of e very- 
religious duty, for such only is the condition of salvation. 
Any person who embraces and obeys the religion of Christ, is 
one, who, in the scripture sense of the phrase, calls on his 
name. Acts ix. 14. " And here he hath authority from the 
chief priests to bind all that call on thy name ;" that is, 
all that have embraced thy religion, and become thy follow- 
ers, xxii. 16. " And now, why tarriest thou ? arise, and be 
baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the 
Lord ;" that is, receiving the truths, and obeying the com- 
mands of the christian religion. Paul writes to the Corin- 
thians, and to " all that in every place call upon the name 



EXP10STI0N OF TEXTS OF SCRIPTURE. 227 

of Jesus Christ our Lord." 1 Cor. i. 2. This address was 
made to all, who had become christian converts.* 

Phil. ii. 9, 10, 11. " Wherefore, God also hath highly 
exalted him, and given him a name, which is above every 
name; that at (in) the name of Jesus every knee should 
bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things 
under the earth, and that every tongue should confess, that 
Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." 

The meaning of this passage is very clear. It is express- 
ive of the exaltation of Jesus, and of the extent and authority 
of his religion. Every knee is to bow, or God is to be wor- 
shipped, in his name ; that is, in conformity with the spirit 
and rules of his religion. All intelligent beings are finally 
to become the true worshippers of God through the religion 
of Jesus Christ. This religion, also, is to have a universal 
prevalence, and all nations will ultimately confess, that Je- 
sus was a divine messenger, and glorify God for his good- 
ness in sending him into the world empowered with so high 
a commisson. No text is more explicit than this, in ex- 
pressing the superiority of God the Father to Christ. How- 
ever highly Christ is exalted, we are told it is God, who 
has exalted him. 

John v. 22, 23. " The Father judgeth no man, but hath 
committed all judgment to the Son, that all men should 
honor the Son, even as they honor the Father. He that 
honoreth not the Son, honoreth not the Father, who hath 
sent him." 

That this text should be brought forward to prove, that 
we are to worship Christ as God, or to honor one in an 

* Wakefield observes, that " this is in very many instances a 
Hebrew phrase for a religious man — one, who acknowledges the 
being and providence of God — one dedicated to his service." See 
Wakefield on Acts ii. 21. Hinc factum est, ut farmula inixaXeio- 
6ul ovoua rivog significant in universum, profiteri religionem 
alicujus. Schleus. in voc. tnixctl. 



228 EXPOSITION OF TEXTS OF SCRIPTURE. 

equal degree with the other, is certainly somewhat surpris- 
ing. In the first place it is said, the u Father hath com- 
mitted all judgment to the Son ;" and next, that " he hath 
sent him," both of which declarations show, as clearly as 
can be shown, that they are distinct beings, and that one 
derives his power and authority from the other. The text 
itself, therefore, points out the impropriety of honoring one 
in an equal degree with the other. We should honor God, 
as the Supreme Being, and the author of our religious pri- 
vileges ; and we should honor Christ, as the messenger, 
whom he has dignified with the high commission of reveal- 
ing the divine will to man, and of becoming, by his doc- 
trines and example, the Saviour of the world. Any disre- 
spect to the authority of Christ, is a disrespect to God, from 
whom he received his commission and power. Instead of 
affording any argument for the supreme worship of Christ, 
this text contains an implied injunction to the contrary.* 

There are some passages in which glory , thanks, and grat- 
itude are rendered to Christ. 2 Peter iii. 18. " To him be 
glory both now and for ever." 1 Tim. i. 12. " I thank 
Christ Jesus our Lord, who hath enabled me, for that he 
counted me faithful, putting me into the ministry." All 
christians, unitarians as well as trinitarians , will undoubted- 
ly unite in the sentiments contained in these and other sim- 
ilar texts. All will be ready to render glory, and honor, 
and thanksgiving, and gratitude to him, who has been so 
highly exalted of God, who was empowered from heaven 
to work miracles, and to publish anew and divine religion to 

* The meaning of the text is much impaired by a wrong trans- 
ation of a single word. Instead of rendering xaBwg, even as, it 
should be since, or seeing. Vid. Schleus. Also Macknight's Pre- 
lim. Essays. Es. 4. No. 203. There is a similar example in Eph. 
i. 3. " Who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly 
places in Christ, (y.aQwg) since, seeing, he hath chosen us," &c. 



EXPOSITION OF TEXTS OF SCRIPTURE. 229 

the world, who lived a life of privation and suffering, and 
at length submitted to an ignominious death, for the pres- 
ent happiness and eternal salvation of men, — all christians 
will revere the dignity of his character, acknowledge the 
perfection of his doctrines and example, yield a willing and 
cheerful obedience to his authority, and feel the warmest 
gratitude for his benevolent exertions, and affectionate so- 
licitude in behalf of the whole human race. But every 
one should be cautious, how he renders to Christ those hon- 
ors, and those ascriptions of praise and thanksgiving, which 
belong to the Father only. There can be but one supreme 
object of spiritual worship, or of religious homage, and that 
is God. He is the Being, whom our Saviour worshipped, 
and commanded his followers to worship. To him all hon- 
or, and glory, and praise are due, and when we ascribe 
these to any other being, except in a limited degree, how 
can it be said, that we are the true worshippers, who wor- 
ship the Father ? Or how can it be said, that we " wor- 
ship the Lord our God, and him only ?"* 

John v. 7. " For there are three that bear record inheav- 
era, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost ; and these 
three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, 
the spirit, the water, and the blood ; and these three agree 
in one." 

This text has been so often, and so thoroughly examined, 
and the words in italics so universally rejected, that I should 
not think it a proper use of time to say a word on the sub- 
ject, did I not know it still to be quoted, as a portion of the 
true scriptures, both by preachers of the episcopal and other 
churches. I can give only a short sketch of the reasons, 
which prove it not to have been written by the apostle. 

* For a comprehensive view of the nature and object of religious 
worship, see a sermon by the Rev. Robert Aspland, entitled, A 
Vindication of Unitarian Worship, London, 1810 
20* 



230 EXPOSITION OF TEXTS OF SCRIPTURE. 

In the first place, it merits our attention, that the sense of 
the passage is not injured by leaving this verse out. On the 
contrary, it is rather improved. The connexion is closer 
without it. The witnesses mentioned in this verse had not 
been introduced before, but the water, blood, and spirit, 
mentioned in the sixth verse, are brought forward in such 
a manner in the eighth, as plainly to indicate that the sev- 
enth has been inserted between them. 

The text in question has never been found in any Greek 
manuscript, which was written earlier than fourteen hun- 
dred years after Christ. It is contained in no Latin manu- 
script, which was written before the ninth century. It is 
not contained in any of the ancient manuscripts of the east- 
ern languages. 

It was never quoted by the Greek Fathers in their con- 
troversies on the trinity. A stronger proof than this can- 
not possibly be advanced, that they had no knowledge of 
such a text. They often cited the verse preceding, and 
the verse following, to prove the divinity of the Son ; but 
this verse, which is much more to the point, they never ad- 
duced. Neither was it quoted by the early Latin Fathers. 
In many editions of the Bible, after the reformation, it was 
either omitted, or inclosed in brackets, to show that it was 
doubtful. It was omitted in Luther's German version, and 
marked as doubtful in the early editions of the English 
Bible.* 

Many of the ablest trinitarian critics of the last and pres- 

* In the old English Bibles of Henry the Eighth and Edward the 
Sixth, the words of this text were either printed in smaller letters, 
or enclosed in a parenthesis. The same was observed in Queen 
Elizabeth's Bible of 1566; but shortly after, the woids began to be 
printed without any mark to distinguish them from other parts of 
the Bible. See Commentaries and Essays, published by the Socie- 
ty for promoting the Knowledge of the Scriptures, vol. i. p. 144. 



EXPOSITION OF TEXTS OF SCRIPTURE. 231 

ent age have rejected this text as spurious. Bishop Lowth, 
in a letter to Michaelis, says, " We have some wranglers in 
theology, sworn to follow their master, who are prepared to 
defend anything, however absurd, should there be occasion. 
But I believe there is no one among us, in the least degree 
conversant with sacred criticism, and having the use of his 
understanding, who would be willing to contend for the 
genuineness of this verse. " # 

Archbishop Newcome has left it out of his translation. 

The bishop of Lincoln says, " that after an attentive con- 
sideration of the controversy relative to this passage, 1 am 
convinced that it is spurious, "j- 

Dr. Jortin expresses himself as follows ; " This text of 
the three heavenly Avitnesses keeps its place in our Bibles, 
in bold defiance to the fullest and clearest evidence against 

it." 

Dr. Doddridge enclosed the passage in brackets ; and ex- 
pressed his doubts as to its being genuine. 

A trinitarian writer in the Eclectic Review, in an article 
written professedly against unitarians, says after some re- 
marks on this text, " under these circumstances, we are un- 
speakably ashamed, that any modern divine should have 
fought, pedibus et unguibus, for the retention of a passage so 
indisputably spurious. We could adduce half a dozen, or 
half a score passages of ample length, supported by better 
authority than this, but which are rejected in every printed 
edition and translation."! 

* See a part of the original letter in the Christian Disciple, vol. 
i. p. 109. quoted from Michaelis's Literary Correspondence, part 
2. p. 428. 

t Elements of Christian Theology, vol. ii. p. 90. Note. 

X See Christian Discipline, vol. i. p. 109. Eclectic Review for 
March, 1809. 



232 EXPOSITION OF TEXTS OF SCRIPTURE. 

After a most critical examination of the whole subject, 
Griesbach rejected the text as totally indefensible.* 

Bishop Middleton and Mr. Wardlaw consider it spurious. 

Such are the opinions of a number of the most learned 
trinitarians. Many more might be quoted. Travis wrote 
largely in defence of the text, but was answered in such a 
manner by Porson, and bishop Marsh, that no one, claiming 
to possess a critical knowledge of the scriptures, especially 
since the investigations of Griesbach, will probably be in- 
clined to revive the controversy. | 

Sir Isaac Newton, also, wrote a treatise against the gen- 
uineness of this verse, in two letters to Le Clerc, which are 
said, by a competent critic, to be " written with force, can- 

* Ego quidem, si tanti esset, sexcentas lectiones ab omnibus 
rejectas atque futilissimas defendere possem, testimoniis et rationi- 
bus seque multis atque validis, imo pluribus plerumque atque vali- 
dioribus, quam sunt ea quibus utuntur hujus dicti patroni. Diatrib. 
in loc. 1 lohan. v. 7. p. 25. 

f It is not to be denied, that bishop Seabury, in his charge de- 
livered in Derby, Connecticut, September 1786, declared the genu- 
ineness of this text to be " incontestibly establishhd by the Rev. 
Mr. Travis." p. 10. But it would seem, by the proceedings of the 
first American convention, that the bishop's authority, in the af- 
fairs of church government at least, was not treated with the most 
profound respect. 

In the critical notes to the Greek and English Testament, pub- 
lished by Roberts, 1729, after examining the evidence in relation to 
this text, the editor observes, " If this evidence is not sufficient to 
prove, that the controverted text in St. John is spurious ; by what 
evidence can it be proved, that any text in St. John is genuine?" 

Dr. Wall in his Critical Notes on the Greek Testament, publish- 
ed 1730, has the following remark on John v. 7. " This verse is in 
no Greek manuscript, nor was in the Bibles of ancient christians, 
nor ever made use of by them in their disputes with the Arians. 
Mill has so defended it, that he, who thought it genuine before, will 
now conclude it to have been interpolated by some Latin scribe 
first." Comment, and Essays, p. 145. 



EXPOSITION OF TEXTS OF SCRIPTURE. 233 

dor and pespicuity." They were published after his death 
in Horsley's edition of his works.* 

Even Beza and Calvin did not allow, that this text affords 
any argument for the trinity. According to these writers, 
it is not a unity of number, which is here spoken of, but a 
unity of testimony. Calvin says, it is a unity of agreement, 
and not of essence ; that is, these three witnesses are one, 
in the same sense, as the water, blood, and spirit are one. 
They all agree in one testimony. ~\ 

All the writers, whom I have mentioned as rejecting this 
text, except Sir Isaac JNewton, were Trinitarians ; and since 
such is the overwhelming evidence of its being spurious, 
it seems truly incredible, that any preacher should be found 
at the present day, so regardless of his reputation for schol- 
arship, for candor, and for honesty, as publicly to quote and 
urge this text to an uninformed audience, as of equal au- 
thority with the rest of the scriptures. The only plea, 
which such a person can make, that ought to have any 
claims on our charity, is ignorance. But this is a plea to 
which few, who make any pretensions to theological attain- 
ments, can resort. It must, indeed, be a cause of serious 
regret to every friend of pure religion, that any one can 
make it with sincerity. But it is still more to be lamented 
by all such, as wish for the success of religious truth, that 
any teachers of the gospel should knowingly and wilfully 
be the means of disseminating error, and of imposing on the 
ignorance and credulity of the multitude, by repeating to 
them as the record of divine truth, what has been most un- 

* Butler's Ho-ree Biblicae, p. 373. Newton's Works, vol. v. — 
These Letters were printed separately in London, 1754. A copy 
of this edition is in the library of Harvard University. It is also 
reprinted in the second volume of Sparks's Theological Tracts. 

\ Ita prorsus consentiunt ac si unus testis essent. Beza.* — Quod 
dicit, tres esse unuin, ad essentiam non refertur, sed ad consensum 
potius. Calvin. See Macknight, vol. vi. p. 109. 



234 EXPOSITION OF TEXTS OF SCRIPTURE. 

deniably proved to be an unwarrantable fabrication of men. 

Matt, xxviii. 19. " Go ye, therefore, and teach all na- 
tions, baptizing them in (into) the name of the Father, and 
of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." 

The word name, by a Hebrew idiom, is often redundant. 
The phrases name of God, name of the Lord, frequently ex- 
press nothing more than God, and Lord. The Psalmist 
says, " I will praise the name of God with a song." that 
is, a I will praise God with a song." Ps. Ixix. 30. The 
name of the Lord is a strong tower." Prov. xviii. 10. 
" Blessed be the name of God for ever and ever." Dan. 
ii. 20. " I will cut off the name of the Chemarims." 
Zeph. i. 4. In all these examples, the word name is redun- 
dant, and might be omitted without affecting the sense. 

In other cases the name of any person signifies the au- 
thority, or doctrine of that person. " I am come in my fath- 
er's name," John v. 43 ; that is, by the authority of my 
Father. " In the name of Jesus Christ, rise up and walk," 
Acts iii. 6 ; that is, by the authority of Jesus Christ. " By 
what power or name have ye done this ?" iv. 7, or, by what 
power or authority have ye done this ?" St. Paul says, 
" I verily thought with myself, that I ought to do many 
things contrary to the name of Jesus of Nazareth," xxvi. 
9 ; that is, contrary to the authority or doctrine of Jesus of 
Nazareth. " In his name (authority, or doctrine) shall the 
Gentiles trust." Matt. xii. 21. 

It hence follows, that being " baptized into the name " 
of any person, is the same as being baptized into the doc- 
trine of that person, or into the person himself; and to be 
baptized into the name of a thing, is the same as being bap- 
tized into the thing itself. This is consistent with what is 
stated in other places. " For as many of you as have been 
baptized into Christ, have put on Christ." Gal. iii. 27. 
u Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Je- 



EXPOSITION OF TEXTS OF SCRIPTURE. 235 

sus Christy were baptized into his death?" Rom. vi. 3. 
" They were all baptized unto, (into) Moses in the cloud." 
1 Cor. x. 2. 

From these passages we must be convinced, that no ar- 
gument can be derived from the text under consideration, 
in support of the doctrine of a trinity of persons in the 
godhead. To be baptized into the name of the Holy Spirit, 
does not imply, that this spirit is a person, any more than 
that death is a person, for the same reason. And if to be 
baptized into Christ be a proof, that he is equal with God, 
you may infer the same of Moses. 

u To be baptized into the name of any person," says 
Schleusner, " signifies to profess, by the rite of babtism, 
a determination to be devoted to his doctrines, his authori- 
ty and his institutions." They, who " were baptized into 
Moses in the cloud, and in the sea," were such as professed 
to be his followers and yield to his authority. To be bap- 
tized into Christ, is to express an acknowledgement of his 
authority, and a resolution to obey his commands, and fol- 
low his example. When Paul expressed his fears, " lest 
any should say, that he had baptized in his own name," his 
meaning was,, that they whom he baptized should not con- 
sider themselves his disciples, but practical believers of 
the religion of Christ. 

In other words, to be baptized into any person, or thing, 
is to make a public profession of faith in that person, or 
thing. Faith is the first requisite of a religious life. We 
cannot obey, till we believe ; and if our faith be rational 
and sincere, we shall scarcely be wanting in obedience. 
One implies the other ; so that to acknowledge a sincere 
faith in the christian religion, by the ceremony of baptism, 
is the same, as resolving to give heed to its injunctions, and 
confide in its promises. 

Baptism was designed as a rite of initiation into the chris- 



236 EXPOSITION OF TEXTS OF SCRIPTURE. 

tian church. To be baptized into the name of the Father, 
Son, and Holy Spirit, was to express a belief that God was 
the original author of the christian religion ; that Christ 
was empowered by divine aid to publish it to the world ; 
and that the influence of the Holy Spirit, or a divine agen- 
cy, was manifest in the miraculous powers and gifts, which 
were exercised, both by our Saviour and his disciples.* It 
is easy to perceive for what reason this form of baptism 
was instituted. It comprises the three principal subjects of 
christian faith. Whoever professes a sincere and rational 
belief in these, can give no firmer indication, as far as faith 
goes, that he is a christian. There was a special, as well 
as general reason, why the Holy Spirit should be connect- 
ed with the other two. The enemies of Jesus, and of his 
religion, imputed the miracles, which he wrought, to a dia- 
bolical agency, and said, " he casteth out demons by the 
prince of demons." It was important, that such impres- 
sions should be done away as speedily and effectually as pos- 
sible, and that his works should be referred to their true 
source, the power and influence of God. This end could 
easily be accomplished, by making it a part of the baptis- 
mal ceremony to acknowledge the operation of the Holy 
Spirit, or the immediate agency of God, in confirming the 
truths of the gospel. | This is rendered the more probable 
from the circumstance of there being no instance on record 
in which the whole form was used. Those persons, who 
had seen such wonderful effects of the Spirit, as to render it 
impossible for them to doubt of their true cause, were for 
this reason, perhaps, not baptized in the name of the Spirit. 
Whether this conjecture be correct or not, it is certain the 

* Baptismus datur in nomen rov anogalavrog IlaTQog, rov tl&ovroq 
Xoiarov, rov uaorvo^aavrog 7caqarJ.yirov^ Clement. Vid. Resonmu. 
Vol. I. p. 575. 

t Marsom's Sermon on the Impersonality of the Holy Ghost, 
third edition, London, 1812, p 38. 



EXPOSITION OF TEXTS OF SCRIPTURE. 237 

apostles did not consider this form as absolutely essential, 
since it was not always, if ever, employed by them. 

There is nothing, therefore, in the form itself, nor in the 
practice of the apostles, which can induce us to think, that 
because the Son and Spirit are mentioned in the same con- 
nexion, we are to take them to be equal to the Father. If 
so important a doctrine were to be inculcated in this form of 
baptism, it certainly would not have been so uniformly omit- 
ted by the apostles. It is, also, to be noticed, that in the 
verse immediately preceding, Christ says, " All power is 
given unto me in heaven, and in earth." If he were God, 
it could never be said, that all his power was given to him ; 
and this acknowledgment of his dependence, in immediate 
connexion with the form of baptism, is another and an un- 
answerable proof, that no such doctrine can be deduced 
from it, as his equality with the Father. 

2 Cor. xiii. 14. " The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, 
and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Spirit, 
be with you all." 

Many of the epistles of St. Paul are begun and ended 
with devout wishes, similar to those here expressed. Some 
have, in these, discovered traces of religious worship offered 
to three beings, and have hence inferred the doctrine of the 
trinity. But such inferences will hardly stand the test of 
examination. 

The grace, or, which is the same thing, the favor of Christ, 
means the gospel of Christ, or all the blessings, privileges, 
consolations, and hopes, which are enjoyed through this 
gospel. We are especially indebted for these to the grace, 
or favor of Christ, because it was from the purest motives 
of benevolence and good will, that he suffered so much for 
the benefit and happiness of men. The apostle expresses a 
desire that these blessings, of which, we have been made 
partakers through Christ, may abound to the Corinthians to 

21 



238 EXPOSITION OF TEXTS OF SCRIPTURE. 

whom he is writing ; and, also, that they may be favored 
with the love, or approbation of God. 

By u the communion of the Holy Spirit," is meant a par- 
ticipation of the gifts, powers, or influences, which go under 
its name. In writing to the Philippians, St. Paul speaks of 
" their fellowship (communion, or participation) in the gos- 
pel," and of their " fellowship of the Spirit."* What can be 
meant here, but a joint participation of the blessings of the 
gospel, and of spiritual gifts ? If you make the Holy Spirit 
a person, what idea can you attach to the apostles language ? 
How could the Corinthians join in the participation of a 
person ? We may commune or participate with, but not of a 
person, and it is to be kept in mind, that there is no such ex- 
pression in scripture, as communion with the Holy Spirit. 
The language of the text itself, therefore, renders it certain, 
that by the Holy Spirit in this place, cannot be understood a 
person, or being, much less the supreme God. The words 
of the apostle imply nothing more, than a benevolent wish, 
that to the Corinthians might abound the blessings conferred 
by the gospel of Christ, the love or favor of God, and the 
enlightening influences of the Holy Spirit. — All other texts 
of this description will be found to require a similar expla- 
nation. 

I have thus examined some of the principal passages of 
scripture, which are usually quoted in support of the trinity. 
Others may have been omitted, which are thought impor- 
tant but my limits have allowed me to select only the most 
prominent. I cannot refrain from repeating a fact, at which 
I have before hinted, that every text, which I have exam- 
ined, has been interpreted, by some one or more of the ablest 
trinitarian critics, in a manner perfectly consistent with the 

* The word xoivwvict is translated promiscuously felloioship, com- 
munion, participation ; but the last seems to be preferable. — 
Schleusner in voc. Yates's Vindication, p. 171. 



EXPOSITION OF TEXTS OF SCRIPTURE. 239 

unitarian exposition. This fact should teach some persons 
to urge with more gentleness the charge, which is often 
brought against unitarians, of attempting to put a forced con_ 
struction on such texts of scripture, as do not seem at first 
to harmonize with their sentiments. The meaning of some 
of the most difficult passages is to be settled by fair and pa- 
tient criticism, in which learning, judgment, and candor, 
are the only guides that can be trusted. These may be ex- 
ercised by persons of one religious denomination, as well as of 
another ; and we show but little regard for the cause of truth, 
when we suffer our prejudices, and zeal for a party, to blind 
our eyes to the light, which the judicious inquiries of learned 
men, whatever may have been their private opinions, have 
thrown upon the scriptures. By neglecting to be informed, 
and refusing to inquire, we not only manifest a love of ig- 
norance, but a fear, that our faith is of too flimsy a texture 
to bear a close examination. 

If we place any value in religious attainments, in a knowl- 
edge of God and of our duty, we shall eagerly seize upon 
every means in our power to come at the revealed truths of 
scripture. Truth in religion, as in every thing else, is 
known by its simplicity ; error involves us in perplexities, 
fills us with doubt, and leaves us in despair. Truth is lu- 
minous ; it sends forth a steady light. Error is dark, and 
spreads darkness around it. Truth is the guide to virtue ; 
it is attended with harmony and peace. Error opens a broad 
way to vice, and draws the heedless and unsuspecting into 
its snares. We should remember, nevertheless, that opin- 
ions are important, so far as they influence the conduct, and 
no farther. A correct faith will make no amends for a bad 
life. Faith is not religion, any more than opinions are ac- 
tions. To be religious, we must have faith ; to act rightly, 
we must think rightly ; and yet, we may have faith and no 
religion, as we may think and never act. 



240 EXPOSITION OF TEXTS OF SCRIPTURE. 

This truth is of great practical importance. It will cause 
us to exercise forbearance and a good temper towards those 
with whom we do not agree in religious opinions. While 
there is such a variety of characteristic features in the 
minds, constitutional temperaments, dispositions, associated 
impressions, and early habits of men ; while there are such 
various degrees of knowledge, mental light, and strength of 
understanding, it is not possible, that all men should think 
alike. Nor is it necessary they should. It is not required 
of us, that we never be in error, but that we use our best 
endeavors to avoid it. Our duty is discharged when we 
have done this, and it is our misfortune, and not our fault, if 
we still remain in the dark. All this may be granted, without 
affording any possible excuse for not keeping up the temper, 
the dispositions, the feelings, and practice of christians. 
There is no other occasion for difference here, than our own 
perverseness, cherished ill nature, and evil passions. If we 
have any regard for the example of our Saviour, and the 
noble virtue of charity, which he enjoined, we shall soon 
learn to subdue these, to lay aside our narrow prejudices, 
to disdain the invidious distinctions of names and sects, to 
brush away the films through which we can see the errors 
and faults, but not the virtues of our fellowmen ; we shall 
learn, that all men are in the hands of God, that, in the con- 
cerns of religion, all have equal privileges and freedom, and 
are entitled to equal claims on our candor, affection, tender- 
ness, and christian love. 



the end. 



VALUABLE WORKS 

PUBLISHED AND FOR SALE 

BY 

JAMES MUNROE AND COMPANY, 

Booksellers, Importers, and Publishers, 

NO. 134 WASHINGTON, OPPOSITE SCHOOL ST. BOSTON. 
PUBLISHED ANNUALLY. No. 1. 



Livermore's Commentary. The Four Gospels ; with 
a Commentary, intended for Sabbath School Teachers 
and Bible Classes, and as an Aid to Family Instruction. 
By A. A. Livermore. St. Ed. 2 Vols, containing Mat- 
thew, Mark, Luke, and John. 12mo. 350 pp. each. 

c In a field of criticism, where sectarianism has spoiled nearly every 
tree and flower, this new product of a generous soil deserves our notice 
as the nearest approach to an unsectarian work. We feel certain it 
will meet the wants of all who call themselves liberal Christians, as 
a family expositor, a reference book in the study of the Gospel, a 
companion in the Sunday School, and an aid to daily devotion. It is 
learned, yet not diy; rational, yet not cold: fervent, yet not fanatical; 
tasteful, yet not one line for mere taste. Mr. Livermore is concise, 
practical, reasonable, . full of generous and holy feeling. His first 
volume having met in a few months with so extensive a sale as to 
authorize a stereotype edition, we commend its simplicity, earnest- 
ness, purity of morals, and practical piety, to a popularity like that 
which has already rewarded the like labors of Mr. Barnes.' — Hunt's 
Merchants' 1 Magazine and Commercial Preview. 

Livermore's Commentary on the Book of the 
Acts of the Apostles. In press. 

1 



2 JAMES MTJNROE AND COMPANY'S PUBLICATIONS. 

Norton on the Trinity. A Statement of Reasons 
for Not Believing the Doctrines of Trinitarians, con- 
cerning the Nature of God, and the Person of Christ 
By Andrews Norton. 12mo. pp. 372. 

' As a critic and theologian, Mr. Norton has long ranked in the very 
first class. But the present treatise will not need the aid of his high 
reputation to give it weight and influence. Those who know any- 
thing of him or his writing will readily credit us when we say, that 
it exhibits a rare union of good sense, choice learning, discrimination, 
and sound logic, which will place it among our standard works in 
theology. 

' Mr. Norton writes for intelligent men, for those who do not shrink 
from examination and patient thought, who are not disgusted at being 
required to exercise a manly independence, who seek truth for truth's 
sake, and are willing to pay the price of its attainment. Such will 
find in the work before us ample materials for study and reflection. 
We are much mistaken, if to many of them it do not open new 
views.' — Christian Examiner. 

Norton's Genuineness. The Evidences of the Ger> 
nineness of the Gospels. By Andrews Norton. 3 
vols. 8vo. 

Noyes's Hebrew Prophets. A New Translation of 
the Hebrew Prophets, arranged in Chronological Or- 
der. 3 vols. 12mo. Each volume comprising about 
pp. 300. New Edition with additions. 

1 We conceive that Mr. Noyes has made the Christian public much 
his debtor by the portion now before us of a version of that difficult 
and strongly interesting part of Scripture, the Hebrew prophecies. 
Three things are especially to be spoken of to his praise ; his learning, 
his cautious and sound judgment, and his beautiful taste. * * * 

' We conclude with expressing our firm persuasion, that the great 
importance of these works will not fail to be permanently and in- 
creasingly estimated. It is not to the credit of our countrymen, if 
their author is not already reaping some benefit from them, additional 
to his own consciousness, and their acknowledgment, of his having 
devoted high powers to a high object.' — Christian Examiner. 

' This new edition is of increased value on account of the additions 
and corrections which it contains. The whole series of volumes, 
from the pen of this accomplished Hebrew scholar, may now be ob- 
tained in a uniform shape, and is of great value, and of high import- 
ance to all students of the Bible. Common readers will be surprised 
to observe how many passages, which are unintelligible to them in 
the common version, are here made plain and significant by a slight 
change of expression, of the meaning of a single word, or the turn of 
a sentence. We should advise all who wish to procure a set of these 
translations to make haste to obtain one ; it is a purchase which they 
will never regret. 1 — Christian Register. 



JAMES MUNROE AND COMPANY S PUBLICATIONS. 3 

Noyes's Psalms- A New Translation of the Book of 
Psalms, with an Introduction. By Geroge R. Noyes. 
12mo. In press. 

Noyes's Job- An Amended Version of the Book of 
Job, with an Introduction and Notes, chiefly Explana- 
tory. By George R. Noyes. Second Edition, revised 
and corrected. 12mo. 

' No translation has appeared in England, since that of Isaiah by 
Lowth, which can sustain a comparison "with that of the Book of Job, 
by Mr. Noyes. With some slight exceptions, this latter is very much 
what Ave could wish it to be.' — Spirit of the Pilgrims. 

' We have not seen any translation of the Book of Job with which 
the public ought to be satisfied, unless it be that which is the subject 
of the present review. Mr. Noyes's version is, in our opinion, by far 
the best translation of Job we have seen in the English language. 
Almost every page bears testimony to his acuteness and patient in- 
dustry, to his habitual caution and accuracy, to his fine powers of 
discrimination, and to his excellent skill and good taste. He has con- 
centrated upon the sacred page the most approved lights of ancient 
and modern learning ; yet he has done it, not, as has been the case 
with many, to add new brightness to the original, but to illustrate 
what had been made obscure, and to present to view, in its true pro- 
portions, what had become distorted through the fault of imperfect 
versions. 

' The notes at the end of the volume have been examined by us 
with care, and we cannot withhold the tribute of our high commen- 
dation, not only for the evidence they give of extensive research, and 
great discrimination, but for their invariable pertinency, and the per- 
fectly unostentatious manner in which they are composed, Indeed, 
we know not where we could find collected, in so narrow compass, 
with so much judgment, and with so little parade, the results of the 
inquiries of so many distinguished biblical scholars.' — Christian Ex- 
aminer. 

Friendly Letters to a Universalist, on Divine 
Rewards and Punishments. By Bernard Whitman. 
16mo. pp. 368. 

1 Though this work was hastily written, the materials for it were 
collected with good care and fidelity. It is a thorough work. It 
covers the whole ground of Universalist argument ; and gives a faith- 
ful expose of the opposing testimony of reason and Scripture. The 
work can hardly exasperate those against whose creed it is aimed ; 
for a spirit of courtesy and kindness pervades it. Nor can one, who 
already believes in a righteous retribution, fail to have his faith 
strengthened by so able a defence of that doctrine.' — American Monthly 
Review. 



4 JAMES MUNROE AND COMPANY'S PUBLICATIONS. 

Palfrey's Academical Lectures. Academical Lec- 
tures on the Jewish Scriptures and Antiquities. By 
John Gorham Palfrey, D. D., LL. D. Vol. I. The 
Last Four Books of the Pentateuch. Vol. II. Genesis 
and Prophets. 8vo. 

' The first volume of this valuable, learned, and elaborate work has 
just publicly appeared in a truly beautiful form. It is not a book to 
be lightly read or lightly spoken of. 

' We can only say that, from the time of its announcement as being 
in preparation, general expectation has been highly raised in regard 
to it, and that, as far as we have examined the present volume, or 
heard the opinions of those who are more competent to pass judg- 
ment upon its merits, we are happy to belieA^e that it constitutes a 
noble addition to the many high claims of its distinguished author to 
public esteem and honor, as a scholar, a divine, and a devoted sup- 
porter of American Literature.' — N. A. Review. 

Palfrey's Lowell Lectures. Lowell Lectures on 
the Evidences of Christianity. By John Gorham Pal- 
frey. "With a discourse on the Life and Character of 
John Lowell, Jr. By Edward Everett. 2 vols. 8vo. 

Palfrey's Sermons. Sermons on Duties belonging to 
some of the Conditions and Relations of Private Life. 
By John G. Palfrey, D. D., Professor of Biblical Litera- 
ture in the University of Cambridge. 12mo. 

' These discourses of Professor Palfrey are entitled to an honorable 
place with those of Barrow, Tillotson, Seeker, and Cappe. And they 
have the superior advantage of presenting within the limits of a single 
volume — of no ordinary typographical beauty — a natural and syste- 
matic arrangement of most of the private social duties. For our- 
selves, we have perused them with satisfaction and thankfulness to 
the author.' — Christian Examiner. 

Worcester's Last Thoughts, on Important Subjects. 
In three parts. I. Man's Liability to Sin. II. Supple- 
mentary Illustrations. III. Man's Capacity to Obey. 
By Noah Worcester, D. D. 16mo. pp. 328. 

' It is the rare merit of the writer's mind, that, although always 
moving onward in his investigations, he moves so cautiously, and with 
such reverence for the truth, and such distrust of himself, that his 
c Last Thoughts' 1 on every subject are invariably his best.' 

Follen's Works. The Works of Charles Follen ; with 
a Memoir of his Life. 5 vols. 12mo. 



JAMES MUNP.OE AND COMPANY'S PUBLICATIONS. O 

Greenwood's Chapel Liturgy. A Liturgy for the 
use of the Church at King's Chapel in Boston; col- 
lected principally from the Book of Common Prayer. 
Fifth Edition ; with Family Prayers and Services, and 
other additions. By F. W. P. Greenwood, 12mo. 

Greenwood's Lives of the Apostles- Lives of the 
twelves Apostles, to which is prefixed a Life of John 
the Baptist. By F. W. P. Greenwood. Second Edition. 
16 mo. With plates. 

Greenwood's Sermons. Sermons to Children. By 
F. W. P. Greenwood, D. D., Minister of King's Chapel, 
Boston. 1 vol. 16mo. 

- A work of this sort doubtless requires some peculiar gifts of the 
heart, as well as of intellect ; and we wish, that when it is under- 
taken from the pulpit, it might be with any good measure of the 
felicity and skill with which Dr. Greenwood has in these beautiful 
sermons accomplished it. We have read them with great pleasure, 
and what is more to the purpose, — since for such they were written, 
— we have found little children who have read them with pleasure 
too. In the judicious selection of the topics, in the crystal clearness 
of the style, in the simplicity and beauty of the thoughts, and the 
tone of seriousness and unfeigned love pervading the whole, they 
furnish a model for such addresses to the pulpit. We can commend 
the volume to parents, that they may obtain it for their children, and 
to children, that they may read it for themselves, — engaging at the 
same time that they shall not rind it ' hard reading.' ' — Monthly 
Miscellany. 

1 We are delighted to meet with a volume for children in some other 
form than a story. We believe these Sermons will be read with as 
much interest as any of the little novels with which the press teems, 
and with more profit.' — Christian Exajniner, 

Sermons on Consolation. By F. W. P. Greenwood, 
D. D., Minister of King's Chapel, Boston. Second 
Edition. 1 vol. 16mo. 

The Last Days of the Savior, or History of the 
Lord's Passion. From the German of Olshausen. 
Translated by Rev. S. Osgood. 12mo, 

Sketch of the Reformation. By Rev. T. B. Fox. 

' This volume contains a short but clear narrative of the lives and 
labors of Luther, Tetzel, Melancthon, Zwingle, and others. 
!# 



6 JAMES MUNROE AND COMPANY S PUBLICATIONS. 

Cfoanning's Works, The Works of William E. Chan- 
ning, D. D. First complete American edition, with, an 
Introduction. 6 vols. 12mo. Five Dollars. 

\£Hr > This edition 'of the works was published under the author's 
own supervision. 

Channing's Self-Culture. Self-Culture. By W. E. 
Channing. With a Biographical Sketch of the author. 
16mo. cloth, gilt. Price 37 1-2 cents. 

' It should be the pocket companion of every young man in the 
country, and to be found on every lady's centre table.' — Cultivator. 

' It is indeed a gem of English composition, of sound, vigorous 
thought and pure wisdom.' — Mobile Register. 

' Few tracts have exerted a more wide and salutary influence than 
Dr. Channing's lecture on Self- Culture. It is a powerful statement 
of encouraging truths set forth in that clear, harmonious and impress- 
ive style for which its lamented author was distinguished. We are 
happy to see it republished in so neat a manner, now that death has 
consecrated the eloquent lessons it conveys. The humblest votary of 
improvement will derive consolation and guidance from its pages.'— 
Boston Miscellany. 

Practical Ethics. Human Life, or Practical Ethics. 
From the German of De Wette. Translated by Samuel 
Osgood. 2 vols. 12mo. 

' These lectures have long enjoyed a high reputation in Germany, 
and other parts of Europe, and we hail with unfeigned pleasure their 
publication in this country. They are eminently original, profound 
and suggestive. 1 — New World. 

' Those interested in the study of ethics, will find in the present 
volumes, a beautiful richness of illustration, and an extended con- 
sideration of the practical duties of life ; and although many readers 
will doubtless dissent from some of the author's principles, as from 
his application of them, the book merits a reading, as exhibiting the 
views of a philosophical and independent mind, and, at the same time, 
those which prevail to a great extent on the continent of Europe.' — ■ 
American Eclectic. 

Buckminster's Works. The Works of Joseph Ste- 
vens Buckminster ; with Memoirs of his Life. In two 
vols. 12mo. 

'One of the first religious books we remember to have read was 
the first volume of Buckminster's Sermons ; and the beautifully 
written life and two or three of the discourses fixed themselves in the 
mind, as nothing is fixed there save in our early years. 

' His sermons, as sermons, are certainly surpassed by none in the 
language .' — Monthly Miscellany. 



De Wette on the Old Testament. A Critical and 
Historical Introduction to the Canonical Scriptures of 
the Old Testament. From the German of De "Wette. 
Translated and enlarged by Theodore Parker. 2 vols. 
8vo. 

Parker's Miscellaneous Writings. The Critical 
and Miscellaneous Writings of Theodore Parker, Min- 
ister of the Second Church in Roxbury. 

Contents. A Lesson for the Day; German Literature ; The Life 
of St. Bernard of Clairvaux : Truth against the World ; Thoughts on 
Labor ; A Discourse of the Transient and Permanent in Christianity 5 
The Pharisees ; On the Education of the Laboring Class ; How to 
move the World ; Primitive Christianity ; Strauss's Life of Jesus ; 
Thoughts on Theology. — 

' We are glad to see these miscellanies republished, and think all 
who read them will enjoy their spirit even when they disagree with 
their doctrines. The tone of earnest conviction, the glow of feeling, 
the occasional beauty of expression in these pages, is very refreshing.' 
— Merchants' Magazine. 

' The essays are written in a style which combines the plainness of 
Cobbett with just the slightest sprinkling of modern literary Euphu- 
ism ; a combination less unattractive than might at the first blush be 
inferred from such a coalition.' — Knickerbocker. 

Parker's Discourses. A Discourse on Matters per- 
taining to Religion. By Theodore Parker, Minister of 
the Second Church in Roxbury. 

Farr's Counsels and Consolations : Containing 
Meditations and Reflections on sixty-two passages of 
Scripture, with particular reference to those in trouble 
and affliction ; to which are added four sermons, suited 
to persons in distressing and mournful circumstances. 
By Jonathan Farr. Second Edition. Enlarged by 
several Prayers, and an Address to those who have 
been afflicted. 1 vol. 18mo. 

' This volume is eminently a work of compassion, it is medicine, 
food, and air for the afflicted lonely ones. That medicine is com- 
pounded of ingredients gathered in the garden of the Lord ; that food 
is the bread which came down from heaven : that air is the zephyry 
odor, which comes from the paradise of God. Let the mentally 
debilitated take, eat, breathe, and revive.' — London Christian Pioneer. 



8 JAMES MUNROE AND COMPANY'S PUBLICATIONS. 

An Offering of Sympathy to the Afflicted: Es- 
pecially to Parents bereaved of their Children. Being 
a collection from Manuscripts never before published. 
With an Appendix of Extracts. By Francis Parkman, 
Third Edition. 18mo. 

c Though small, it is rich in comfort and instruction. Prepared by 
the editor in a season of peculiar personal affliction, it contains many 
of his own thoughts, with the judicious selections which he made 
from hooks from which he drew consolation, besides the original 
articles which at his request were furnished by his brethren in the 
ministry. In the present edition not only is the Appendix — of Ex- 
tracts — enlarged, but an original article is given not found in the 
former editions.' — Monthly Miscellany. 

' We are not surprised that Dr. Parkman's excellent little volume 
has reached a third edition. It has carried comfort to many a heart. 
We wish it well on its errand of peace.' — Christian Examiner. 

' A volume deserving a cordial welcome to every house and heart. 
The variety of thought and expression, and yet the perfect harmony 
of tone of feeling which marks this spiritual wreath for a christian 
cemetery, will make it live and bloom as long as sorrow is known.'-— 
Hunt's Magazine. 

The Holy Land and its Inhabitants. By S. G. 

Bulfmch. Being a description of this interesting coun- 
try, and also a History of it, Ancient and Modern, its 
Antiquities, &c. &c. 

Lives of Eminent Unitarians; with a Notice of 
Dissenting Academies, containing Lives of Robertson, 
Palmer, Priestley, Price, and others. By the Rev. W. 
Turner, Jim., M. A. 2 vols. 12mo. 

Henry Ware, Jr. Views of Christian Truth, Piety, 
and Morality, Selected from the Writings of Dr. Priest- 
ley. "With a Memoir of his Life. By Henry Ware, 
Jr. 12mo. pp. 288. 

* Mr. Ware has here erected a noble and enduring monument of the 
pure and truly Christian character of one of the most gifted and single- 
hearted of Christian confessors. The Memoir, compiled for tbe most 
part from Dr. Priestley's own letters, and other writings, and drawn 
up with care, is interesting tbroughout, and full of instruction. The 
same may also be said of the selection of sermons, and other pieces 
which make up the body of the work ; for they are almost exclusively 
practical, and present ' views of Christian truth, piety, and morality,' 
remarkable for their good sense, strictness, and discrimination.'— 
Christian Examiner. 



JAMES MTJNROE AND COMPANY S PUBLICATIONS. iJ 

Ware on Christian Character. On the Formation 

of Christian Character, addressed to those who are 
seeking to lead a Religions Life. By Henry "Ware, 
Jr., D. D. Twelfth Edition. 18mo. 

Henry Ware, Jr.'s Hints on Extemporaneous 
Preaching", with rules for its government. Third 
Edition. 

' It is the object of this little "work to draw the attention of those 
who are preparing for the Christian ministry, or who have just 
entered it, to a mode of preaching, which the writer thinks has been 
too much discountenanced and despised : but which under proper 
restrictions, he is persuaded may add greatly to the opportunities of 
ministerial usefulness.' — The Preface. 

Ware's Life of the Savior. The Life of the Savior. 
By Henry "Ware, Jr., Professor of Pulpit Eloquence 
and the Pastoral Care in Harvard University, pp. 284. 
Fourth Edition. 18mo. 

1 If we can suppose any person to be a stranger to the Gospel his- 
torians, in a Christian land, we think Professor Ware's narrative with 
its illustrations would be to such a person a work of unequalled in- 
terest in biography, provided he possessed a common share of moral 
sensibility. To one somewhat acquainted with those histories, perused, 
as they usually are, under great disadvantages in our common ver- 
sion, in small, detached portions, and without any helps, this ' Life of 
the Savior ' affords assistance, in various ways, at once in a more 
popular and a more intelligible form than can elsewhere be found, so 
far as we know. This volume is intended particularly for the young; 
but it is a valuable aid to every reader of the Gospels ; an aid to the 
understanding of them, and an aid to reflections upon their truths. It 
unites, in some good measure, the advantages of a paraphrase and a 
commentary, without the feebleness of the former, or the dryness of 
the latter.' — American Monthly Review. 

Henry Ware, Jr's. Scenes and Characters, Illus- 
trating Christian Truth. In a series of Tales, each 
number complete in itself. To be had separately. 
Edited by the Rev. H. Ware, Jr. 

' If we may judge of this series of little works from the two numbers 
which have appeared, we should say that it bids fair to be eminently 
useful, and to realize whatever we might expect from the high 
character of the writers engaged. They should be read. Whoever 
contributes at all to circulate them does good to the public.'- — Bostot} 
Daily Advertiser. 



10 JAMES MUNROE AND COMPANY'S PUBLICATIONS. 

1. TRIAL A1VD SELF-DISCIPLME, By Miss Savage, Author of < James 
Talbot.' 

'If the remaining numbers shall be executed with the same skill, 
and the same deep religious feelings which pervade the first, these 
little volumes will be an important addition to the works which make 
religion attractive and lovely.' — Christian Register. 

2. THE SCEPTIC. By Mrs. Mien, Author of ' The Well-spent Hour.' 

' This is an admirable little book, which no one will dip into without 
reading through, and no one will read through without being improved 
and delighted. The argumentative portions are clear and forcible, and 
are naturally and skilfully interwoven with the web of the story. 
The characters are conceived and sustained wonderfully well, and 
never were the Christian graces more beautifully and consistently 
displayed than in the life and conversation of Alice Grey. We owe a 
debt of gratitude to the writer who gives us so natural and true a pic- 
ture of the influence of Christianity upon our daily and hourly duties, 
and of the mighty power which it bestows upon the character and 
affections.' — Boston Observer. 

S. HOME. By Miss Sedgwick, Author of ' Redwood,' &c. 

' The influence of an enlightened mind and pure heart is shed, like 
sunshine, over all that Miss Sedgwick writes.'— Mrs. Child. 

1 One of the sweetest homely pictures of domestic life among the 
middle classes of New England, which it is possible to imagine, and 
one full of the instruction which makes a way to the heart.' — Taitfs 
Magazine. 

4. GLEAMS OF TRUTH. By the Rev. Joseph Tuckerman, D. D. 

' This little work differs from its predecessors in being not a ficti- 
tious and connected narrative, but a collection of detached facts, 
anecdotes, and conversations, which actually occurred within the 
writers own experience. This difference, while it adds to its value, 

will not make it less interesting, but the contrary Truth 

is strange, and stranger than fiction, and the most creative imagina- 
tion could not have conceived more striking and consistent illustra- 
tions of Christian character than are here presented to us to admire 

and imitate Nothing can be more elevating, inspiring, and 

encouraging, than the instances which he has here given us.' — Boston 
Observer. 

§. THE BACKSLIDER. By the Author of the < Hugcnots,' &c. 

' The Blackslider is intended to illustrate the influence of Chris- 
tianity on minds differently constituted, particularly on the two prin- 
cipal characters of the story. In Anna Hope, we see its effects on a 
mind naturally well balanced. In Walter we see the good seed scat- 
tered on the thin soil ; and it is the aim of the writer to show where 
the lack of root is.' ' Such fictions as the one before us, by their 
faithful and graphic representations of human nature, affect us for 
the time like reality.' — Christian Examiner, 



JAMES MUNROE AND COMPANY S PUBLICATIONS. 11 

6. ALFRED ; or. the Effects of True Repentance. And the BETTER 
PART. By the Author of ' Sophia Morton.' 

Mrs. Farrar's Life of John Howard, the Philan* 
thropist, with a Preface by Rev. Henry Ware, Jr. 

This volume gives an interesting narrative of the Life and also of 
the various undertakings of this eminent philanthropist ; it is written 
with all the vigor of the other works of its author. 

Memoir of Rev. Joseph Tuckerman, (Minister to 
the Poor.) By Rev. W. E. Channing. 18mo. 

Jouflfroy's Ethics. Introduction to Ethics : including 
a Critical Survey of Moral Systems. Translated from 
the French of Jouffroy. By William H. Channing. 

This work consists of a critical review of various ethical systems } 
aiming to give a fair view of the merits and demerits of each, with 
especial regard to the particular points wherein lay the faultiness of 
each. To every student of moral philosophy, and of the history of 
the human mind, such a sketch must be of very great interest and 
value. 

Burnap's Lectures to Young Men; on the culti- 
vation of the Mind, the formation of Character, and 
the Conduct of Life. Second Edition. By George W. 
Burnap. 1 vol 12mo. 

1 Remarkable for the intelligent spirit which they display, and the 
sound moral instructions conveyed.' — Phila. Ledger. 

Lectures on the Sphere and Duties of Woman, 

and other subjects. By George W. Burnap. 1 voll 
12mo. 

'The duties of Women, and especially of American females, are 
ably defined, and correctly animadverted on. We take pleasure in 
recommending it as a work that all parents should place in the hands 
of their daughters, and the husband in that of Ms wife.' — N. Y. Lady's 
Companion. 

' We commend the book to the attention of every female, whether 
young or old, and whatever station she may fill. They will find a 
true friend in the author, and cannot fail to draw improvement from 
bis admonitions.' — Boston Courier. 

Lectures on the History of Christianity. By 

George W. Burnap. 1 vol. 12mo. 



12 JAMES MUNB.OE AND COMPANY'S PUBLICATIONS. 

Memoir of James Jackson, Jr. M. D. written by 
his Father, with extracts from Ms Letters, and remin- 
iscences of him by a Fellow Student. 18mo. 

Memoir of Nathaniel Bowditch, (the Mathemati- 
cian.) 18mo. 

Dewey's Sermons. Discourses on various subjects. 
By Rev. Orville Dewey. 3 vols. 12mo. 

W. H. Furness. Jesus and his Biographers ; or the 
remarks on the Four Gospels, revised with copious 
additions. By W. H. Furness. 1 vol. 8vo. 

Ripley's Specimens of Foreign Standard Literature* 

Edited by George Ripley. 14 vols 12mo. 

Volumes 12 and 13, containing De WETTE'S HUMAN 
LIFE. See page 6. 

Volume 14. SONGS AND BALLADS. With notes. 
Translated by Charles T. Brooks. 

The Unitarian. Conducted by Bernard Whitman. 
8vo. pp. 590. 

Meditations for the Sick. By Jonathan Cole. 1 8ma 

Tracts of the American Unitarian Association. 

In 15 vols. 12mo. 

Christian Disciple. 6 volumes, 8vo. 
Christian Examiner, complete to 1844. 35 vols. 

The pages of this work have been enriched by contributions from 
the pens of Worcester, Channing, Norton, Greenwood, Ware, and 
others. 

Henry Ware, D. D„ An Inquiry into the Foundation, 
Evidences, and Truths of Religion. By Henry Ware, 
D. Do late Hollis Professor of Divinity in Harvard 
College. 2 vols. 12mo. 



JAMES MUNROE AND COMPANY'S PUBLICATIONS. 13 

Theodore ; or the Skeptic's Conversion. Translated 
from the German of De Wette. By James F. Clarke. 
2 vols. 12mo. 

Sparks's Essays and Tracts. A Collection of Es- 
says and Tracts in Theology. From various Authors, 
with Biographical and Critical Notices. By Jared 
Sparks. 6 vols. 12mo. 

Unitarian Miscellany, and Christian Monitor. Edited 
by Rev. Jared Sparks, and Rev. F. W. P. Greenwood. 
6 vols. 12mo. 

The Young Maiden- By Rev. A. B. Mussey. Fourth 

Edition. 

'It will be perused with advantage by the class for whom it is 
especially designed, and will secure the favorable judgment .of their 
most judicious friends.' — London Inquirer. 

The Young Man's Friend. By A. B. Mussey. l8mo. 
Second Edition. 

Week Day Religion. By Rev. Bernard Whitman, 
18mo. 

Gieseler's Text Book of Ecclesiastical History. By J. 
C. I. Gieseler, Doctor of Philosophy and Theology, 
and Professor of Theology in Gottingen. Translated 
from the Third German Edition by Francis Cunning- 
ham. 3 vols. 8vo. 

Observations on the Bible, for the use of Young Per- 
sons. 12mo. 

Locke on the Epistles. A Paraphrase and Notes 
on the Epistles of St Paul to the Galatians, First and 
Second Corinthians, Romans, and Ephesians. To 
which is prefixed an Essay for the Understanding of 
St. Paul's Epistles, by consulting St. Paul himself. By 
John Locke. 8vo. pp. 456. 

The Dial. Published quarterly, 16 numbers now out, 
Edited by R. W. Emerson. 
KF= A few complete sets only remaining on hand, 
2 



14 JAMES MUNROE AND COMPANY'S PUBLICATIONS. 

JUST PUBLISHED. 

LECTURES 

ON 

CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE. 

By Andrew P. Peabody, Pastor of the South Church, 
Portsmouth. 1 vol. 12mo. 

ENDEAVORS 

AFTER THE 

CHRISTIAN LIFE. 

A "Volume of Discourses by James Martineau. 12mo. 

Contents. The Spirit of Life in Jesus Christ; The Besetting 
God ; Great Principles and Small Duties ; Eden and Gethsemane ; 
Sorrow no Sin ; Christian Peace ; Religion on False Pretences 5 
Mammon Worship 5 The Kingdom of God within us, Part I ; The 
Kingdom of God within us, Part II; The Contentment of Sorrow; 
Immortality ; The Communion of Saints ; Christ's Treatment of 
Guilt ; The Strength of the Lonely ; Hand and Heart ; Silence and 
Meditation ; Winter Worship ; The Great Year of Providence ; Christ 
and the Little Child ; The Christianity of Old Age ; Nothing Human 
ever Dies. — > 

' These discourses form part of an extensive plan ; and may be con- 
sidered not so much a separate work, as an introduction to a complete 
treatise on the Christian character and life. Their object is to awaken 
the Christian spirit, rather than to describe the perfect Christian life ; 
and while they inculcate specific duties and warn against specific 
sins, their leading design is to excite and strengthen the devout spirit 
that will lead us always to perform all duties. 

' We recommend the volume to our readers as the production of an 
enlightened Christian mind, full of earnestness and power and love of 
souls. It was composed because the author had something to say on 
the highest subjects of human thought, because his heart overflows 
with sympathy for the ills of man, and because he has felt for himself 
the blessedness of laboring for their removal. He is an enthusiast ; 
but an intelligent one, who does not expect to remove social evils by 
the application of any fine-spun political system, but by awakening 
in each individual heart some mighty emotion, that shall lead to the 
reformation of that individual life. 

' The discourses on the Kingdom of God within us, on Great Prin- 
ciples and Small Duties, on Immortality and the Great Year of Provi- 
dence, are particularly interesting and instructive.' — Monthly Miscellany 

LETTERS ON EPISCOPACY. By Jared Sparks. 
Second Edition, with large additions 1 vol. 12mo. 



JAMES MUNROE AND COMPANY'S PUBLICATIONS. 15 



NEW HYMN BOOK. 

The Social Hymn Book, consisting of Psalms and 
Hymns, for Social Worship and Private Devotion. 
With 28 pages music. 

' It is designed to supply the want which is believed to be increasing, 
of a small and cheap Hymn Book for vestry meetings, and for parishes 
that are unable to procure more expensive collections.' — The Preface. 

' The collection contains 360 Hymns, 14 Doxologies, 21 Sacred 
tunes. There are somewhat more than 130 of the Hymns which are 
not found in Dr. Greenwood's, of these a portion are found in some of 
the other collections ; a part of them are truly exquisite and beautiful, 
and ought to appear in every collection. 

' The hymns which Mr. Robbins has introduced, in general do 
credit to his taste and reading. Some of those from Bishop Mant's 
Collection of Ancient Hymns seem harsh to most readers on a first 
perusal, but familiarity renders them highly attractive and stores the 
heart with rich and beautiful sentiments.' — Christian Register. 

' In looking over this work, we are happy to recognize a number 
of our favorite hymns, the omission of which in other collections 
we have always regretted. The Book breathes the spirit of the con- 
ference room, and is at the same time well adapted, as it is in part 
intended, ' for parishes that are unable to procure more expensive col- 
lections.' ' — Salem Observer. 

' This is an admirable selection of devotional hymns, and will, 
doubtless, become a favorite one for the purposes for which it was 
designed. The collection was made by Rev. Chandler Robbins, of 
this city, whose name, alone, is a sufficient guaranty for its excel- 
lence. We hail this little work, as one among the signs we daily see, 
of interest in the work of enlivening the whole Church, and bringing 
us all into an active, visible cooperation. 

' We ought to say in addition, that at the close of the book are 
placed some twenty, or more, of the most beautiful and popular tunes 
used at social religious meetings.' — Christian World. 

' We welcome, with the rest, the graceful little volume before us, as 
supplying a want, which has been sensibly felt in a department of our 
social worship, and as well adapted to private and domestic devotion. 
The excellence of its typographical execution invites attention, which 
will be amply rewarded by its skilfully selected and arranged con- 
tents. 

' For infant and feeble parishes, ' unable to procure more expen- 
sive collections ; ' for the meetings of the vestry and all other social 
services among Christians ; for the private and domestic altar we 
cordially recommend the Selection before us. It unites the indispen- 
sable grace of a Christian spirit, by which it is pervaded, with poetic 
beauty ; and so entire is its freedom from doubtful or sectarian phrase- 
ology, that it may easily become the manual, and a favorite one too, of 
Christians of various denominations.' — Monthly Miscellany. 

CC^ Already used in several parishes. Copies furnished to clergy 
and others, for examination. 



16 JAMES MUNROE AND COxMPANY's PUBLICATIONS. 



MANUALS 



SABBATH SCHOOLS. 

Livermore's Commentary- 2 vols. See page l. 

A Catechism of Natural Theology. By I. Nichols, 
D. D., Pastor of the First Church in Portland. Third 
Edition, with additions and improvements. 12mo. 
Plates. 

' Dr. Nichols has prefixed to his work the appropriate motto, ' Every 
house is builded by some man ; but he that built all things is God ; ' 
and the work is a very happy illustration of its motto. It is devoted 
principally to an examination of the human frame, and it is shown 
that the conformation of its various parts, and their adaptation to the 
purposes which they are known to serve, could not have happened 
without the design of an intelligent Creator. It is better adapted to 
the comprehension of youth and common readers, than the more 
elaborate and extended treatises of Paley and others ; and next to the 
Holy Scriptures, is one of the most interesting and useful fields of 
contemplation which could be spread out before them. If any person 
can peruse this little book without feeling a kindred emotion, and 
forming a similar purpose, the fact would be an affecting proof of the 
alienation of the heart from its Maker. When it is remembered that 
Atheism is among the spreading errors of our land, we see an addi- 
tional reason for directing our youth to such intellectual pursuits, as 
will furnish the best defences against this arch heresy ; and such we 
regard the contents of the work under review. We are glad that a 
new edition of the work has been demanded, and that it makes its 
appearance in a style of execution so worthy of its matter.' — Chris- 
tian Mirror, Portland, Me. 

Hints to Sunday School Teachers, in a series of 
Familiar Lectures. By Rev. T. B. Fox. l&mo. price 
25 cents. 

Allen's Qne§tions Parts 1, 2, and 3. 18mo. 

Walker's Service Book B l8mo. 

Fox's Sunday School Prayer Book B l8mo. 

Child's Duties and Devotions. l8mo. 

The Ministry of Christ, with Questions. By Rev. 
T. B. Fox. 18mo. 



JAMES MUNROE AND COMPANY'S PUBLICATIONS. 17 

Peabody's Sunday School Hymn Book- iSmo. 

Channillg's, Worcester Association, Rhode Island, and 
Carpenter's Catechisms. 

Life of the Savior. By R>ev. H. "Ware, Jr. ISmo. 
see page 9. 

Scripture Truths in Questions and Answers, for the 
use of Sunday Schools and Families. 18mo. pp. 7-5. 

' The writer of this little manual has not attempted to do better 
where others have done well. Nor is this simply another Sunday 
School book — though that would be no objection. It is in facta 
new Sunday School book. It enters a province which has heretofore 
been kept shut, at least in the schools of Liberal Christians ; viz. the 
province of doctrine. * * * With these views we welcome this book. 
Every question that is apt to arise, concerning God, Christ, Faith, 
Ordinances, Prayer, Repentance, &c. &c, is answered by a passage of 
Scripture ; and there are very few passages that do not contain fair 
answers and sufficient exposition for the young. The controverted 
and most difficult texts are more fully explained, yet with great sim- 
plicity, in notes, and also an Appendix. In the hands of well in- 
structed and judicious teachers, no one, we think, would doubt the 
utility of such a manual. In families, to be used by parents, it is 
excellent. Indeed for general use we feel free to commend it. The 
plan and execution as a whole we like, and hope a fair trial will be 
given it.' — Monthly Miscellany. # 

' We are ignorant of the name of the Author of this little book, but 
we think he has done good service to the cause of religious instruc- 
tion. We are not in favor of the multiplication of manuals for the 
use of Sunday Schools, but the arrangement and plan of this work, 
are such as to make it a valuable assistant to any parent and Sunday 
School Teacher.' — Christian Register. 

The Sunday School Teacher's Guide. By A. B. 

Muzzey. 18mo. 

J.^ M. & Co. being engaged in the publication of 
Juvenile Works, can offer to individuals and others, 
selecting for Sabbath, School, and District Libraries, 
superior advantages. And they keep constantly on 
hand the largest assortment of Juveniles to be found, 
embracing all the works by Mary Howitt, Mrs. Ellis, 
Aunt Kitty, Charlotte Elizabeth, The Abbotts, and others. 
All of which will be sold at a LARGE DISCOUNT, 
from the trade prices. 

Ojr^ 3000 volumes now on hand. 
2# 



18 JAMES MUNROE AND COMPANY'S PUBLICATIONS. 

MANUALS 

FOR 

DAILY DEVOTION. 

Hours for Heaven : a small but choice Selection of 
Prayers, from Eminent Divines of the Church of Eng- 
land. Intended as a Devotional Companion for Young 
Persons. 32mo. gilt edges. 

1 This is a little manual of devotion, consisting of prayers and 
meditations for each, day in the week, with additions of prayers for 
particular occasions. 

' To the prayers are added many miscellaneous pieces in prose and 
verse, suited for aids to devotion ; and, lastly, several weighty religious 
aphorisms. 

' There are here and there forms of invocation, and single expres- 
sions, from which we dissent ; but the spirit, and, with few exceptions, 
the language, is such that we do not fear to recommend the book to 
serious Christians of all denominations.' — Christian Register. 

' A choice selection of prayers from eminent Divines which is 
designed as a devotional companion. It is an elegant little volume, 
nicely printed and bound, and its contents will be very acceptable to 
any that may read them occasionally, as designed.' — Ploughman. 

Farr's Prayers. Forms of Morning and Evening 
Prayer, composed for the use of Families. By Jona- 
than Farr. 16mo. pp. 174. 

; The ' Forms of Morning and Evening Prayer' are among the best 
that have come under our notice, — at once calm and fervent, scriptu- 
ral and rational ; for which reason we doubt not that they will find 
general favor among those who are accustomed to avail themselves of 
such helps to private or domestic devotion. The volume is very 
neatly printed and done up, and contains prayers for every day in a 
fortnight, and eight morning and evening prayers for any day in the 
week, and a great variety of occasional prayers for families, and for 
individuals.' — Christian Examiner. 

Sewell's Dally Devotions^ for a Family, with occa- 
sional Prayers. Second Edition. 12mo. 

Greenwood's Chapel Liturgy ; collected principally 
from the Book of Common Prayer, Fifth Edition; 
with Family Prayers and Services, and other Addi- 
tions. ByF. W. P. Greenwood. 12mo, 



JAMES MUNROE AND COMPANY 1 S PUBLICATIONS. 19 

Brooks's Prayers. A Family Prayer Book, and Pri- 
vate Manual ; to which are added, Forms for Religious 
Societies and Schools, with a Collection of Hymns. 
By Charles Brooks, Minister of the Third Church in 
Hingham, Massachusetts. 12mo. 

1 Both as to its substance and form, it is a work of an excellent 
design, and well calculated to answer its design ; and considering how 
much it is wanted amongst us, and how much good it may do, we are 
happy in having this opportunity to recommend it most cordially.' — 
Christian Disciple. 

Bowring's Matins and Vespers ; with Hymns and 

Occasional Devotional Pieces. By John Bowring. 
London. ISmo. Price 50 cents. 

' There is in them a frequent display, or rather the presence without 
the display, of a tenderness and pathos, an elegant simplicity and 
devotional feeling, which win upon the heart, and sometimes touch it 
as with strains from unearthly worlds. There is no drama, no tale, 
no controversy in these poems ; they are truly ' Matins and Vespers.' 
They charm by their modesty and sensibility, and by a deep venera- 
tion of, and an ardent expression of gratitude towards, our Almighty 
Creator, Preserver, and Benefactor. Many of the pictures in them of 
the love and compassion of God towards his creatures are truly beau- 
tiful and affecting.' — Christian Observer, London. 

Furness's Domestic Worship. By W. H. Fiimess, 
Pastor of the First Congregational Unitarian Church 
in Philadelphia. Second Edition. 12mo. 

' The prayers are divided into sections and are not specially appro- 
priated to the several days of the week; that opportunity may be 
given for selection, omission, and variety.' — The Preface. 

The Social Hymn Book; consisting of Psalms and 
Hymns for Social Worship and Private Devotion- 
Compiled by Rev. Chandler Bobbins. ISmo. 

Devotional Exercises. Compiled by J. T Bucking- 
ham. 18mo. Third Edition. 

' We like this little volume extremely. The plan is happy and it is 
executed with exceedingly good judgment and taste.' — N". A. Review. 

' This unpretending little volume is compiled from the Book of 
Proveibs, the Book of Psalms, and the Gospels. The compiler has 
executed his task with excellent judgment, and we most heartily 
recommend it.' — Salem Observer. 



20 JAMES MUNROE AND COMPANY'S PUBLICATIONS. 

HISTORY 

OF THE 

HAWAIIAN Oil SANDWICH ISLANDS, 

Embracing their Antiquities, Legends, Discovery by 
Europeans in the Sixteenth Century, Rediscovery by 
Cook, with their Civil, Religious, and Political History, 
from the earliest period to the present time. By 
James Jackson Jarves, Member of the Am. Oriental 
Society. With Maps and Plates. 8vo. 

' The book is carefully prepared and furnishes a highly attractive 
narrative. The ground over which the author has passed has been 
almost entirely untrod before him, and the history will be quite new, 
we believe, to almost all readers. It is a history full of its passages 
of romance, — for these islands have not been exempted from the 
stirring excitements of larger communities.' — Boston Daily Advertiser. 

' The work bears the marks of great attention and patient research; 
the narrative is easy, flowing, and spirited, in a style adapted to the 
subject.' — Philadelphia Christian Observer. 

' Mr. J. has produced an excellent and permanently valuable book.' 
— Boston Recorder. 

' It supplies a deficiency in our literature, and is finished in such a 
manner that it will not have to be done again. This work will be a 
favorite ; it affords information not easily found elsewhere, and if 
attainable at all, only to be collected by great labor, and from a variety 
of sources.' — Baptist Memorial and Monthly Chronicle. 

N. HAWTHORNE'S TWICE TOLD TALES. 2 

vols. 12mo. Cloth. 

' A whole volume of collected Miscellanies of great merit is before 
us. We mean Mr. Hawthorne's ' Twice Told Tales,' which will one 
day or other be naturalized into our Library of Romance, if truth, 
fancy, pathos, and originality, have any longer pow T er to diffuse a 
reputation. He has caught the true fantastic spirit, which somewhere 
or other exists in every society, be it ever so utilitarian and practical, 
linking the seen to the unseen, the matter of fact to the imaginative. 
As a recounter of mere legends, Mr. Hawthorne claims high praise. 
We cannot too heartily commend this book as the best addition that 
has been made to w r hat may be called the Fairy Library, which has 
been made for many years.' — London Foreign and Colonial Quarterly 
Review. 

'To this little work we would say, ' Live ever, sweet, sweet book.' 
It comes from the hand of a man of genius. Every thing about it has 
the freshness of morning and of May. A calm, thoughtful face seems 
to be looking at you from every page. — N. A. Review. 



JAMES MUXROE AKB COMPANY'S PUBLICATIONS. 21 

SCENES AND SCENERY 

IN THE 

SANDWICH ISLANDS 



And a trip through Central America: being observa- 
tions from my Note-book during the years 1837— 1842. 
By James J. Jarves, Author of the History of the 
Sandwich Islands, <fcc, embellished with Map and 4 

plates. 

' Mr. Jarves has enjoyed peculiar advantages for acquiring an accu- 
rate knowledge of the past and present condition of this people, their 
manners and customs, and the natural features and resources of the 
islands ; and of these he has fully availed himself. He seems to have 
written without fear or prejudice, desirous of doing ample justice to 
missionary effort, and exposing the more than savage outrage of for- 
eign residents and visiters, some of them high in official station, with 
fearlessness. 

' From the two works of Ml J., a more accurate idea of the islands 
may he obtained, than from any other source. There is much liveli- 
ness in his narrative : and an occasional imperfection in the structure 
of a sentence, or the inexact use of a word, shows that he did not 
write in fetters. In his ; Sketches.' particularly, he has managed so 
to intermingle the offensive and the ludicrous, the beautiful and the 
economical, as to portray well the peculiar transition state of this 
people. "Whoever would rind an account of the Sandwich Islands, 
both amusing and instructive, will not fail to read Mr. J.'s books.' — 
Christian Review. 

1 The book before us. written by Mr. James Jackson Jarves, is illus- 
trative of the recent progress of religion, science, and refinement in 
that most interesting group — the Sandwich Islands. 

' We rarely read a book of this class from beginning to end : to the 
volume before us. however, we have paid this compliment. It con- 
tains many provincialisms, and. strange to say. a few grammatical 
errors ; yet we like the spirit in which it is written, and the vividness 
with which the author paints novel scenes in the North. Pacific' — 
Nciv World. 

SONGS AND BALLADS. 

Translated from Uhland, Korner, Burger, and other 
German Lyric Poets, with notes. By Charles T. 
Brooks. 

' In this volume we have presented to us a string of beautiful pearls. 

' The typographical execution of the work is good, and the pub- 
lishers merit commendation. We think the volume well worthy a 
place among the selected poetry of the day.' — American Eclectic. 



22 JAMES MUNROE AND COMPANY'S PUBLICATIONS. 



MISCELLANEOUS BOOKS. 

CARLYLE'S MISCELLANIES. 4 vols. 

" SARTOR RESARTUS. Fourth American Edition. 

HEROES OF HISTORY. 1 vol. 
FRENCH REVOLUTION. 2 vols. 
WILHELM MEISTER. 3 vols. 
PAST AND PRESENT. 1 vol. 
CHARTISM. 1 vol. 

GERMAN ROMANCE: Specimens of its chief 
authors ; with Biographical and Critical Notices. By Thomas 
Carlyle. 2 vols. 12mo. 
ESSAYS BY R. W. EMERSON. 1 vol. 

Contents. History; Self Reliance; Compensation; Spiritual 
Laws ; Love ; Friendship ; Prudence ; Heroism ; The Over Soul ; 
Circles ; Intellect ; Art. 
NATURE. By R. W. Emerson. 

LIFE OF CRABBE THE POET. By his Son. 12mo. 
THE HAMLETS, A TALE. By Miss Martineau. 2d. Ed. 18mo. 
PIERPONT'S POEMS, now first collected. lGmo. 
POLITE LITERATURE IN GERMANY. Translated by Geo. 

W. Haven. 16mo. 
COLERIDGE'S CONFESSIONS OF AN INQUIRING SPIRIT. 
AIDS TO REFLECTION. By S. T. Coleridge. 8vo. 
TUCKER'S LIGHT OF NATURE PURSUED, with a Memoir. 

4 vols. 8vo. 
GUIZOT'S ESSAY ON THE INFLUENCE AND CHARAC- 
TER OF WASHINGTON. 16mo. 
GREENWOOD'S SERMONS, with a Memoir. 2 vols. 12mo. 
STEWART'S ELEMENTS OF THE HUMAN MIND. Svo. 4th 

Edition. 
CHANNINGS WORKS, Edited by the Author. 6 vols. 12mo. 
SUNDAY LIBRARY FOR YOUNG PERSONS. 4 vols. 18mo. 
HOLMES'S ANNALS OF AMERICA. 2 vols. 8vo. 
HISTORY OF HARVARD UNIVERSITY. By B. Peirce. 8vo. 
MARY HOWITT'S, STRIVE AND THRIVE. 
HOPE ON! HOPE EVER. 
SOWING AND REAPING. 
WHO SHALL BE GREATEST? 
" TALES IN PROSE. 

TALES IN VERSE. 
TALES IN NATURAL HISTORY, 



JAMES MUNROE AND COMPANY S CATALOGUE. 



23 



STANDARD WORKS. 



Bancroft's U. S. 3 vols. 

Sparks's Life of Washington. 1 vol. 

" American Biography. 10 vols. 
Franklin's Works. 10 vols. 
Prescott's Ferdinand and Isabella. 3 v. 

" Mexico. 3 vols. 
Burke's Works. 9 vols. 
Stephens's Central America. 2 vols. 

" Yucatan. 2 vols. 

" Arabia Petroe. 2 vols. 

" Greece, &c. 2 vols. 

Story's Writings. 1 vol. 
Shakspeare. Various Editions. 
Milton's Poetical Works. 2 vols. 

" Prose Works. 2 vols. 
Cowper's Poems. 2 vols. 
Longfellow's Poems. 3 vols. 
Encyclopedia Americana. 13 vols. 
Miss Bremer's Works. 1 vol. 
Edgeworth's " 10 vols. 

Hannah More's " 2 vols. 

Sherwood's " 8 vols. 

Butler's Works. 2 vols. 
Spenser's " 5 vols. 
Channing's " 6 vols. 

Henry Ware's Works. 
Charlotte Elizabeth's Works. 



Greenwood's Works. 
Follen's " 5 vols. 

Heman's " 5 vols. 

Whittier, Tennyson, Leigh Hunt, Scott, 

Barry Cornwall, and Lowell's Poems. 
Burns's Works. 1 vol. 
Aiken's British Poets. 8vo. 
Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress. 
Lamb's Complete Works. 8vo. 
Herbert's Poems and Remains. 2 vols. 
Latrobe's Scripture Illustrations. 4to. 
D'Aubigne's Reformation. 3 vols. 
Neander's Church History. 
Bible in Spain. 

Milman's History of Christianity. 
Buckminster's "Works. 2 vols. 12mo. 
Life of Jean Paul Richter. 2 vols. 
Peabody's Doctrinal Discourses. 12mo. 
Allison's History of Europe. 4 vols. 

8vo. 
Carlyle's "Works. 14 vols. 12mo. 
Poets and Poetry of America. 
Buckminster's Works. 2 vols. 
Walter Scott's Novels, Poems, and Life, 

uniform. 39 vols. 
Paley's Works. 6 vols. 
Young's Old English Prose Writers. 9 r. 



MRS. SIGOURNEY'S 
PLEASANT MEMORIES OF PLEASANT LANDS. 2d. Ed. with additions. 

16mo. Illustrated with two beautiful Engravings. Cloth. 

' It has all the charms which characterize the works of William 
Howitt, besides its poetical illustrations of some of the most romantic 
spots known over the wide earth.' — Christian Register. 

' It contains a variety of articles, suggested by a recent visit to Great 
Britain, in poetry and prose, but all of a superior order, and all calcu- 
lated to enchain the attention of the reader, — and while the beautiful 
description of scenes abroad tends to enlighten, the elegant language 
and the elevated sentiments must purify the heart.' 

NEAT MINIATURE TOLUMEsTlN CLOTH, GILT EDGES. 

Channing's Self- Culture ; Hours for Heaven: Pure Gold: Sentiment 
of Flowers : Hemans, Wordsworth, Campbell, and Bowring's Poetical 
Works: Casket of Four Jewels ; Bible and the Closet: Marriage Ring; 
Daily Manna : Elizabeth, or the Exiles of Siberia ; Yicar of Wakefield ; 
Goldsmith's Essays; Gems from American Poets: Hannah More's 
Private Devotion ; Token of the Heart ; Paul and Virginia ; Flower 
Vase; Gems from Female Poets; Scott's Poetical Works. 3 vols.; 
Coleridge's Poetical Works ; Barton's Poems ; Remember Me ) Queen 
of Flowers. 



JAMES MUNROE AND COMPANY, 

Publishers, Booksellers, and Stationers, 

134 WASHINGTON STREET, 
BOSTON, 

KEEP CONSTANTLY ON HAND A LARGE ASSORTMENT OF 

MISCELLANEOUS BOOKS, SUITABLE FOR CITY, 

TOWN, AND VILLAGE LIBRARIES. 

[IMPERSONAL ATTENTION PAID TO ALL ORDERS ENTRUSTED TO THEIR CARB. 

SCHOOL BOOKS, ALL THE VARIETIES IN USE IN THE 
UNITED STATES. 

Books imported to order, in large or small quantities, 
by every steamer ; and answers to orders received in 
thirty to sixty days. Orders from incorporated institu- 
tions, executed free of duty. 

Particular attention paid to the furnishing of Juvenile 
Libraries, either Sabbath or Day School, and as low as 
can be procured anywhere in the city. 

Merchants, School Committees, and Teachers, supplied 
with Books and Stationery at a large discount from Trade 
Prices. 

J, M. & Co, are also publishers of 

THE 

AMERICAN ALMANAC, 

AND 

REPOSITORY OF USEFUL KNOWLEDGE. 

Edited by Francis Bowen. 14 volumes now ready. Back 
volumes supplied. 



Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: March 2006 

PreservationTechnologies 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 

1 1 1 Thomson Park Dnve 
Cranberry Township, PA 16066 
(724)779-2111 



